Denialism (was Re: [WikiEducator] Phil's Rants)
Edward Cherlin
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 23:16, Steven Parker <spar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "denial of the existence of global warming, or denial of the truth of
> evolution? The space race is a product of movie special effects? The earth
> is flat? It is difficult for me to imagine my believing such. Do they
> deserve a hearing?"
>
> Some of these are obviousily very ridiculous but yes it is a real problem
> giving controversial issues a hearing, for example alot of educational
> resources have been created and taught to students on the existence of
> global warming based on the impact of human carbon emissions.
>
> From an education point alot has been politically and personally invested in
> this premise based on IPCC data but yet only recently as I'm sure many of
> you are aware there has been the "Climategate" controversy whereby the
> British Climatic Research Unit's computers at the University of East Anglia
> where hacked. From this emails and documents have been published which show
> IPCC endorsed scientists engaged in the the falsification and destruction
> of data
Humpty Dumpty fallacy: Words mean only what I want them to mean,
rather than having different meanings in different contexts.
By no means. In fact, shame on you for being fooled by industry shills
and True Believers in Conspiracy Theories.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/26/17302/203
DS: When Phil Jones wrote in 1999, "I've just completed Mike's Nature
trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years
(i. e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the
decline," what did he mean?
Michael Mann: Phil Jones has publicly gone on record indicating that
he was using the term "trick" in the sense often used by people, as in
"bag of tricks", or "a trick to solving this problem ...", or "trick
of the trade". In referring to our 1998 Nature article, he was
pointing out simply the following: our proxy record ended in 1980
(when the proxy data set we were using terminates) so, it didn't
include the warming of the past two decades. In our Nature article we
therefore also showed the post-1980 instrumental data that was then
available through 1995, so that the reconstruction could be viewed in
the context of recent instrumental temperatures. The separate curves
for the reconstructed temperature series and for the instrumental data
were clearly labeled.
and so on.
> and vindication of "sceptical scientists" with data contrary to the
> global warming hypothesis.
Cherrypicking fallacy.
Also not the case, as discussed in the same story and many others on
Daily Kos and elsewhere. The scientists have taken account of daily
and annual warming and cooling cycles, the cooling effect of volcanic
aerosols and warming from volcanic CO2, variations in El Niño/La Niña,
and a multitude of other measured and modeled effects tending to more
or less warming at particular times. Carbon-industry pseudo-scientists
follow the techniques pioneered by tobacco industry pseudo-scientists,
picking out one factor or another and claiming that it invalidates the
analysis that actually includes it, while ignoring all of the real
data, and expecting the public not to check up on them.
> i.e the science is most definitely not closed.
Strawman fallacy.
Science is never closed. A theory can only be closed if it is held in
a closed mind.
We are still running tests on General Relativity, such as the recently
completed Gravity Probe B. Initial analysis suggested detection of
frame dragging, but a problem in tracking the rotations of the test
spheres has put that result under a cloud. It was not clear when I
last checked whether further analysis will clear up the matter. Denial
of global warming would be equivalent to claiming that the failure of
this experiment to return a valid result somehow calls General
Relativity into question, even though the GPS system couldn't possibly
work without GR time calculations for orbiting atomic clocks.
The issues in global warming do not extend to whether it is occurring.
The measurements of global air and water temperature, and of melting
ice and permafrost, are unequivocal. The questions are how much, how
fast, and with what effects on sea levels, agriculture, disease,
extinctions, and other matters that affect human well-being.
It is correct to say that all global warming models have been wrong.
This does not help the deniers, because the models have all been wrong
in the wrong direction. All of the major indicators show that warming
is worse than expected, and accelerating faster than predicted.
Contrary to all conspiracy theories, climate models have been
consistently conservative. The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is
apparently saturated, as it has recently begun releasing about as much
CO2 as it absorbs. If this extends to the whole ocean, the rate of
accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere will roughly double from the
current rate. If the Arctic sea ice disappears, ocean currents may
change dramatically. If the permafrost melts, it may release huge
amounts of methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, though
not so long-lived in the atmosphere. I could go on.
As with Holocaust Denial and "Creation Science", trivial objections
are put forward to True Believers as reasons to dispute the entire
story, a story actually based in each case on vast records and other
evidence. The Holocaust occurred at large numbers of sites, for which
detailed records were kept, whether or not you can find the remains of
the demolished gas chambers or cremation ovens at Auschwitz. Evolution
is a fact, not a theory. Many billions of facts, in fact. We can
discuss details of DNA, ribosomes, the genetic code, the RNA world,
the lack of a detailed roadmap of abiogenesis, but none of the
questions about details and unknown sequences changes our
understanding of mutation processes and of natural and sexual
selection. Nor do the fake fossils of human and dinosaur footprints
together. And the AIR and WATER and ICE and DIRT and ROCKS are
WARMING, and the oceans are getting more acid. No possible discrepancy
in modeling or in use of easily misunderstood jargon can change those
facts.
> See:
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/British_Climatic_Research_Unit%27s_emails_hacked
>
> Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails -
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac
>
> Does this deserve a hearing? Yes most definatley otherwise an education wiki
> becomes non objective and counter to the aims of educating people into the
> area of indoctrination.
It has had a hearing, and has been extensively debunked. Do your
homework. Search for comments on the issue using Google, and see
whether you can tell the science from the pseudoscience.
> Yes a real problem despite it being difficult to imagine.
Cold fusion is a more interesting case. We are quite certain that
chemists Fleishman and Pons believed their conclusions for a long
time, even though physicists poked holes in every announcement, and
published quantum mechanical analyses showing why their result was
imossible. I can provide details if anybody needs them, or you can
look it up. The graphs of supposed gamma ray emission from their
experiments were physically impossible, because they showed no
reflected gamma rays at the appropriate energy shifts. The next set of
graphs showed the features required by that criticism, but failed to
show others. And so on. Nevertheless, scientists tried to replicate
their results for more than a year, without success, before giving up.
Scientists never do an experiment or run a model just once.
Deniers do no experiments and build no models, but claim that any
single error in any scientific paper is grounds for throwing out the
whole idea. This is based on a misunderstanding of the term
"falsification" by Karl Popper in his book Conjectures and
Refutations. One observation does not constitute a fact, and one fact
does not refute an established theory. The Michelson-Morley
experiments conducted over more than a year conclusively demonstrated
that Classical Physics was incomplete for motion at a significant
fraction of the speed of light, but not that it was fundamentally no
good. Nobody abandoned physics between those experiments and
Einstein's Relativistic explanation. We know that quantum mechanics
and General Relativiy cannot both be complete, and in fact we expect
that both are incomplete. But we do not throw them out. They remain
accurate as far as they go. Someday, something new will go farther,
and the old theories will be seen to be approximations of the new
theory in the old realm, while the new theory explains much more in
new realms.
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Phil Bartle <cmpb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Rant for this weekend is about controversial subjects
>> See: http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Philbartle#Phil.27s_Rants
>> Cheers,
>> Phil
>> If the coach does the pushups,
>> The athlete will not get stronger
>> Community Empowerment:
>> www.scn.org/cmp/
>> WikiEducator
>> http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Philbartle
>> Join our discusssion forum
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Community_Strengthening
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "WikiEducator" group.
>> To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org
>> To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator
>> To post to this group, send email to wikied...@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> wikieducator...@googlegroups.com
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "WikiEducator" group.
> To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org
> To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator
> To post to this group, send email to wikied...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> wikieducator...@googlegroups.com
--
Edward Mokurai (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) Cherlin
Silent Thunder is my name, and Children are my nation.
The Cosmos is my dwelling place, the Truth my destination.
http://www.earthtreasury.org/
Steven Parker
Sorry mate no fallacy, no conspiracy IPCC climate scientists actually
have been scandousily busted cooking and destroying the data on
global warming, this should be welcomed by wikieducators with an open
mind (No denial) for what this means fro teaching (The scientific
process) why not give students links to this controversy, have a a
learning activity on climate change science, denialism, crime and
fraud, sociology, behaviorism, media, computer hacking you name it.
I'll not try to convince you on what this means for the global warming
science that's up to you, read the climategate info though it sounds
like you have it figured out as conspiracy (ok) for others Google
"climategate" and read the news, there is a great student activity
within.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=climategate+new+zealand&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
I found this video interview with Dr Tim Ball rather interesting
"Retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball joins us to discuss the
significance of the recently leaked emails and documents"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac
Fascinating, I'm sure there is more to follow.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/lawrence-solomon-new-zealand-s-climategate.aspx
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017977/climategate-the-scandal-spreads-the-plot-thickens-the-shame-deepens/
,
Cheers
Steven Parker
Jan Visser
There is no point in exposing the current generation of learners to multiple views, except when it leads to more profound insight. Thus, it makes sense from a historical perspective to get exposed to, e.g., the Ptolemaean and the Copernican views of planetary motion. This provides insight into how each of those views is reasonable and can be understood in the context of the scientific culture of the time. It also shows how our knowledge advances and why and when older theories get replaced by new ones. Similarly, juxtaposing classical and relativistic mechanics makes sense because the tools provided by either of them are useful for understanding natural phenomena in different domains. It also helps to understand why we want to resort to a more refined theory in certain cases only, relying on a cruder version of the theory when we don't need the refinement.
It makes no sense, though, to deliberately juxtapose things like evolution and creationism as alternative, equally valid, scientific views of origin. Anyone can easily find scores of pseudo-alternatives to the established theories on the Web. It is much more important to help learners appreciate the distinctions between different kinds of understanding (such as somatic, mythic, romantic, philosophical, and ironic understanding, as identified by Kieran Egan - http://jvisser-ldi.blogspot.com/2009/04/understanding-world-in-diverse-ways.html). It furthermore helps to explore in an educational context the multiple meanings and connotations of terms like evolution, creation, origin, emergence, etc. in perspectives that are broader than those provided by science per se or religion per se. It is even more helpful if learners can be led to practicing habits of mind, developing emotional dispositions, applying acquired values, and reflecting metacognitively and meta-emotively on their own behavior in ways that allow them to be constructively present in their world. To do so requires more than the strong emphasis we often have on 'providing content.' Currently, WikiEducator still has an, understandably, strong emphasis on providing "a free version of the education curriculum by 2015." WE thus distinguishes itself from schooling in general in the sense that it provides the curriculum for free. However, like in traditional schooling, there is still this inconvenient notion that it's the curriculum that sets the standard, rather than what you do with a curriculum.
Jan
--
Jan Visser, Ph.D.
President & Sr. Researcher, Learning Development Institute
E-mail: jvi...@learndev.org
Check out: http://www.learndev.org and http://www.facebook.com/learndev
Blog: http://jvisser-ldi.blogspot.com/
Edward Cherlin
> Hi Edward
>
> Sorry mate no fallacy,
> no conspiracy IPCC climate scientists actually
> have been scandousily busted cooking and destroying the data on
> global warming,
malefactor was drummed out of the scientific community. This isn't one
of them.
In any case, one researcher, or a few researchers, cooking data says
nothing about the validity of the rest of the investigators in the
field. To argue otherwise is a clear evidence that you have come to a
predetermined conclusion, and you are cherry-picking data to support
it, following the lead of the anti-scientific Global Warming deniers.
My question to you is, Why do you want Global Warming to be false?
> this should be welcomed by wikieducators with an open
> mind (No denial)
> for what this means fro teaching (The scientific
> process) why not give students links to this controversy, have a a
> learning activity on climate change science, denialism, crime and
> fraud, sociology, behaviorism, media, computer hacking you name it.
> I'll not try to convince you on what this means for the global warming
> science that's up to you, read the climategate info though it sounds
> like you have it figured out as conspiracy (ok) for others Google
> "climategate" and read the news,
cranks rather than scientists on this. I can't help you, unless you
are willing to do the homework yourself, rather than relying on
politically motivated junk science.
> there is a great student activity
> within.
>
> http://www.google.com.au/search?q=climategate+new+zealand&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
>
> I found this video interview with Dr Tim Ball rather interesting
> "Retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball joins us to discuss the
> significance of the recently leaked emails and documents"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac
in chemistry. It took no effort to discover this fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
"The plain fact is there was never any evidence of CFCs affecting the
ozone layer."
He is one of those I had in mind when I noted that the deniers claim
that models don't include factors that they do include, and that they
ignore all of the facts.
"Water vapor is effectively ignored in the computer models. Yes,
that's right. The climate models used as the basis for the entire
global warming argument do not include the effect of clouds."
"Since 1940 and from 1940 until 1980, even the surface record shows cooling."
Both claims are factually incorrect, and require us to believe in a
global conspiracy within all of climate science.
Ball was featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary
film produced by Martin Durkin that was first aired in March 2007. The
film showcased scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and
others who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming.
In the film, Ball was misattributed as a professor in the Department
of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg (the University of
Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology and Ball retired
more than ten years before the show aired).[11] Since then, he has
also appeared numerous times on the Glenn Beck Show, with a role in
the special, "Exposed: Climate of Fear."
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_%28television_director%29
Always critical of environmentalism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/04/comment.comment
Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/21/climatechange.carbonemissions1
Why does Channel 4 seem to be waging a war against the greens? The
Guardian, July 22, 2008
As Channel 4 is once again fiercely criticised by the TV watchdog for
distorting the views of climate scientists, George Monbiot lays bare
the channel's shameful history of misleading its viewers on global
warming
Steve Foerster
the most obnoxious tactic in political discourse today, and I would
like to think that in a community like ours it would be entirely
unwelcome. In the highly charged environment we have when it comes to
this issue, where there is so much noise and the truth is so often
hidden by melodramatic rhetoric on both sides, it is not only fools
and liars who are skeptical of global warming, it is entirely possible
to hold that position in good faith.
Edward, if you want to point out how the science behind this works,
and explain why those who are skeptical (1) that climate change is
occurring, and (2) that it's human caused, and (3) that it will be a
very bad thing for humanity, then that's great -- I for one admit that
I could use a better understanding of it. But to repeatedly use such
a term in a transparent attempt to morally equate climate change
skeptics with holocaust deniers is hateful and divisive. Please stop
it.
Sincerely,
-=Steve=-
--
Stephen H. Foerster
http://wikieducator.org/steve
Wayne Mackintosh
Well said and excellent post!
We have the age of enlightenment to thank for the marvels of nuclear fission and the atom bomb :-(. Sadly, in a post enlightenment age we are still struggling between the age old tensions between "science" and "humanity". What have we learned?
WikiEducator is a project which spans multiple cultures and perspectives of beliefs. We are not an encyclopaedia striving for an "objective" view of an article. I trust that our community will not succumb to the traps of value judgements. I for one don't have the knowledge or experience to exercise these kinds of judgements but have observed that these are informed by contexts -- very often contexts that the "opposing" side will have difficulty to grasp and understand real meaning :-(. However, by being open -- I have the opportunity to learn how different perspectives can manifest themselves in educational contexts -- becoming a richer person for the experience.
I would like to see WikiEducator resources evolve and develop from a foundation of respect for humanity and an openness to listen and learn. A community that respects freedom of speech. Education is humanity and will always be contextually and culturally bounded --- hence the "objective truth" is of itself an elusive construct.
Cheers
Wayne
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "WikiEducator" group.
To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org
To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator
To post to this group, send email to wikied...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
wikieducator...@googlegroups.com
--
Wayne Mackintosh, Ph.D.
Director,
International Centre for Open Education,
Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand.
Board of Directors, OER Foundation.
Founder and Community Council Member, Wikieducator, www.wikieducator.org
Mobile +64 21 2436 380
User Page: http://wikieducator.org/User:Mackiwg
Skype: WGMNZ1
Twitter: OERFoundation, Mackiwg
NELLIE DEUTSCH
Warm wishes,
Nellie Deutsch
Sharing is Caring!
Doctoral Student
Educational Leadership
Curriculum and Instruction
Integrating Technology for Active Life-long Learning (IT4ALL) http://www.integrating-technology.com/pd
Get ready for CO10 at WiZiQ: http://connecting-online.ning.com/
Free online workshops using WiZiQ: http://www.wikieducator.org/Workshops
Edward Cherlin
Wayne, I fear that you don't know what you are talking about. Are you
also a global warming denier/"skeptic"? Or just grotesquely
politically correct, treating all points of view as equally to be
respected? If it's something else, please tell us what.
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 18:36, Steve Foerster <st...@hiresteve.com> wrote:
> The use of the word "denialism" to describe climate change skeptics is
> the most obnoxious tactic in political discourse today,
Calling yourself a skeptic when you accuse the entire scientific
community of fraud and conspiracy is one of the more obnoxious tactics
in political discourse today, but it does not compare in nastiness
with Dog Whistle race politics and some other practices. See my page
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Code_words for a large and extremely
snarky set of translations of the widespread but unacknowledged greed,
racism, and intolerance. Countering lies and intentional ignorance
with facts, using clearly defined terms supported by evidence, is not
a tactic. It is a central part of the Scientific Method.
We cannot settle the issues between us by arguing about language. Let
us begin with facts. I need to know which scientific data, theory, and
conclusions you accept, and which you reject.
1) CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. Here is the chart of CO2 in the
atmosphere for the last 50 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
Do you believe that this dataset has been faked? If so, how?
2) Do you accept the data on the burning of carbon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere
"Emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130
times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to
about 27 billion tonnes per year."
"The oceans have absorbed about 50% of the carbon dioxide (CO2)
released from the burning of fossil fuels, resulting in chemical
reactions that lower ocean pH. This has caused an increase in hydrogen
ion (acidity) of about 30% since the start of the industrial age
through a process known as “ocean acidification.”
Do you believe that these measurements have been faked?
3) If both of those are true, and also the established fact that CO2
is a greenhouse gas, does it follow that global warming is man-made?
If not, what would count as sufficient evidence?
4) If global warming were real and man-made, do you accept that we
would have to do something about it?
5) Who are the reliable sources among the Global Warming
Deniers/"Climate Change Skeptics", many of whom have obvious conflicts
of interest in working for the carbon fuel industry?
After you answer those, I will give you links to CO2 in the oceans; to
air, water, and land temperatures; to the melting of ice and
permafrost; to tree-ring and other archaeological data on CO2 and
warming; and a good deal more.
> and I would
> like to think that in a community like ours it would be entirely
> unwelcome.
not you accept that you suffer from it. See, for example Mistakes Were
Made (but not by me).
We have had in recent times AIDS denial, Holocaust denial, Global
Warming denial, evolution denial/Creationism/Creation
Science/"Intelligent Design; economics denial (Voodoo Economics),
Apollo moon mission denial, 9/11 denial, vaccine denial, and a number
of other such movements. Each has the same characteristics, as did
fluoridation denial, Communist conspiracy theories, the Protocols of
the Elders of Zion, and much more.
> In the highly charged environment we have when it comes to
> this issue, where there is so much noise and the truth is so often
> hidden by melodramatic rhetoric on both sides,
calmly about data, conjectures, evidence, theories, peer review,
experiments, confirmation, refutation, and the like. I will cite
examples sometime, and you can do the same. I will then refute your
examples. Actually, let us begin with Senators James Inhofe, R-OK, and
Al Gore, formerly D-TN, and look at their rhetorical styles. Start
here.
http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20091129/LETTER/911289999/1078&ParentProfile=1055
When Democratic Sen. Harry Reid announced last week that any vote on
the climate change bill was being postponed until 2010, Republican
Sen. James Inhofe from Oklahoma, the leading climate change skeptic in
the Senate, said to Barbara Boxer in a Senate speech: “It's over. Get
a life. You lost. I won.”
> it is not only fools
> and liars who are skeptical of global warming, it is entirely possible
> to hold that position in good faith.
that you are.
> Edward, if you want to point out how the science behind this works,
> and explain why those who are skeptical (1) that climate change is
> occurring, and (2) that it's human caused, and (3) that it will be a
> very bad thing for humanity, then that's great -- I for one admit that
> I could use a better understanding of it.
you, I can tailor my presentation to your difficulties. Here is a good
summary:
http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20091129/LETTER/911289999/1078&ParentProfile=1055
Politics aside, what is the evidence that humans are largely
responsible for global warming? The argument is very simple actually.
Since 1750, CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere have risen from 280
ppm to 394 ppm, methane levels have risen from 715 ppb to 1775 ppb,
and nitrous oxide levels have risen from 270 ppb to 319 ppb. CO2
measurements since 1955 have come from atmospheric monitoring stations
around the world, while measurements before 1955 come from ice cores
in Antarctica and deep sea cores around the world. According to Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institute, there has been a direct correlation
between CO2 concentration and global temperatures. (Global
temperatures are partially inferred by examining the percentage
changes in tropical, subtropical, and cold water species of plankton
in deep sea cores). At 394 ppm, CO2 concentration is the highest it
has been in the last 400,000 years. Measurements of human-caused
(anthropogenic) greenhouse gases show even greater increases than the
atmospheric increases. Excess CO2 is absorbed by plants during
photosynthesis, but with deforestation, the plants cannot remove all
the anthropogenic CO2. According to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 13 of the warmest 14 years since 1880
occurred in the 14 years between 1994 and 2009.
But there is much, much more.
> But to repeatedly use such
> a term in a transparent attempt to morally equate climate change
> skeptics with holocaust deniers is hateful and divisive. Please stop
> it.
whom most Americans consider not to matter much until they are
actually dying. You stop it.
Let me give you a historical example. Henry Ford was taken in by the
Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an obvious forgery. But as one of my
math professors used to say, it may well be that something is obvious,
but it is not obvious that it is obvious. Henry Ford was anti-Semitic
in what you call good faith, until he had the forgery process and
motives explained to him. How would he know? you might ask. Well, he
could have asked. Lots of people would have told him. It was no
secret. And neither is this. So thanks for asking.
Normally, I would not want to carry on a conversation so seemingly
irrelevant to this list's purpose. But I maintain that epistemology is
fundamental to everything we do, and this is an excellent test case.
Every child growing up has to decide what to believe because others
say so, and what to check up on. Also, how to check. Who is reliable
on a particular subject? Should I check even on those people?
Wayne Mackintosh
Wayne, I fear that you don't know what you are talking about.
My concern relates to assumptions you are making about what members of this list know or do not know. In our WikiEducator community we play the ball -- not the person. We treat people with mutual respect, recognising our diverse cultures.
My post had nothing to do with global warming per se, but rather education in a broader context and what our community is about. This is the way we play the game in WikiEducator -- please respect our community values and how we interact with each other -- we have welcomed your membership with open arms respecting that everyone has value to contribute to education as a social good.
There is a lot I don't know -- but I'm learning everyday.
Cheers
Wayne
Alex P. Real
I agree with Nellie that fear to listen may indeed be harmful, same as not realizing who our audience/readers, etc may be & how our own backgrounds model perceptions. But silence (understood as refusal to speak) can be equally pernicious for then unidirectional monologues replace any substantial dialogue despite individual impressions. No offence meant, but can’t but try a reading of the discussion:
1. Phil posts one of his great rants (top marks)
2. TALOnian Steven (“Sparks”) is well-known for his thought-provoking posts , leading to enriching discussion whether one agrees or not with his viewpoints J. If I recall correctly he’s rather environmental-conscious.
3. If I was living in the US amidst Creationism odds are I’d have a similar initial reaction to Edward’s; but I’m not, same as I think all the other people involved with this discussion (?).
4. Thanks Steven (Foerster) for voicing what many WE were likely to be thinking.
5. Wayne may have appeared as politically correct for community-building and peace-keeping reasons, was there any other way out? Does critical thinking involve being “incorrect” 24/7?
6. Then Edward has turned it into a personal thing (or so it appears). I can’t help wondering why, this thread seemed rather promising in terms of intercultural awareness.
7. I’m not going to discuss pro/con Climate Change discourses for I’m no expert and when debates are rather heated & receive ample media coverage I normally become skeptical and focus on the underlying political-economic interests. Striking that so-called “ecological” fuels such as ethanol are behind recent further deforestation in Peru & Brazil, as well as wheat scarcity, price increases and food riots around the world.
I really hope WE all learn something from this & move forward!
Cheers,
Alex P. Real
Steven Parker
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 19:06, Wayne Mackintosh
> <mackinto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Steve,
>>
>> Well said and excellent post!
>
> Wayne, I fear that you don't know what you are talking about.
I don't think you can develop a good dialogue with others in your
communication in that your language comes across as very arrogant and
aggressive bordering on bullying (I'm not convinced on your
credentials either).
Are you
> also a global warming denier/"skeptic"? Or just grotesquely
> politically correct, treating all points of view as equally to be
> respected? If it's something else, please tell us what.
commenting on, "Should controverisal viewpoints have a platform in
educator. I used the example of the very real and current Climategate
event as an example of how controversy must be accomodated otherwise
the wiki becomes a place of unquestioning indoctrination. From what I
read into your email there is no room for questioning the global
warming science?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
I've recently been listening Richard_Lindzen and his infrared iris
hypothesis work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis.
"Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle
atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has
published more than 200 books and scientific papers.[1] He was the
lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,'
of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has been a
critic of some global warming theories and the alleged political
pressures on climate scientists."
Does this guy know what he's talking about?
He also recently took place in a debate "Global Warming is not a crisis"
"To transcend the toxically emotional and the reflexively ideological.
To encourage recognition that the opposing side has intellectually
respectable views." - Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6t2D74UcrY
He also recently did an interview on 2GB with Alan Jones on the
politicisation and economic interests in the climate science - Check
it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AavOwZzxTgA
So when Climategate happened my mind was open I was losing the good
faith as a layman in the climate science which has come from the IPCC
(I.e Hockey stick fiasco, Lindzen's work). The IPCC has been
questioned based on revelations from the climategate emails. Have you
read them? I haven't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
I've been following the wikpedia page on the incident learning heaps
from people who have.
A friend put me onto this discussion on the leaked data based on
comments on manipulating the Fortran source code some of the most
revealing material may be the programmer comments embedded in the
climate models' source code. (The kind of code used to pump out those
lovely graphs you link to from wikipedia).
Climate Model Source Code Comments
printf,1,’IMPORTANT NOTE:’
printf,1,’The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density’
printf,1,’records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer’
printf,1,’temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set’
printf,1,’this “decline” has been artificially removed in an
ad-hoc way, and’
printf,1,’this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,’density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,’observed temperatures.’
It's kind of hard to spin that isn't it?
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro from the
released docs is the original source. The source code itself was
created and maintained using public funding and can thus be presumed
to be in the Public Domain.
Is it acceptable to add sections quoting source code from the
original ClimateGate docs and if so, would anyone be willing to assist
a newbie in doing it properly? GrouchyOldMan (talk) 16:21, 26 November
2009 (UTC)"
Apparently the hacked data also contains emails on hijacking the peer
review process, descrediting scientists and deleting inconvienet data.
There are lots of choice quotes this is my favorite:
"The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment
and it's a travesty that we can't"
I hope this conversation progresses in the spirit of an inclusive
manner, download the climategate data (Suggest you do the same) and
have a look, maybe it's a storm in a teacup and there really is
something postive to be said for the IPCC's work. Lets wait and see
how this 'Climategate' pans out over the coming months AND TALK ABOUT
IT WITH STUDENTS.
Jan Visser
I seem to be in agreement with all those who take part in this discussion, but on different points.
I an earlier post I supported Edward and I still do. Terms like ‘deniers’ and ‘denial’ were not invented by Edward. Al Gore used the term in reference to climate change denial and Lawrence Solomon wrote a book with the title “The Deniers.” Last July Solomon was interviewed on Paul Kennedy’s CBC ‘Ideas’ show in a program that was also called “The Deniers.” Listen to it at http://probeinternational.org/media/ideas-deniers.mp3. Incidentally, Solomon, a prominent Canadian environmentalist, doesn’t deny that there is something wrong with the mingling of science and politics in the IPCC. The issue is complex and nothing in science is ever known for sure. That’s why it’s science. But science is also a value system and one of its supreme values is that it is self-critical and self-corrective.
I agree with Wayne, Nellie, Steve and others that the tone in which we entertain a dialogue matters. I also recognize that we have different interpretations of what that means and that cultural and historical differences play a role in those diverse interpretations and appreciations. It requires sensitivity on the part of those who speak and openness towards alternative interpretations of what one believes to hear on the part of those who listen. This is not easy in a community, such as the WE community, that spreads around the world. But we must all try.
It doesn’t mean, though, that everything goes and that those who call themselves ‘educators’ should not be very serious about the way they care for how people learn. This includes challenging our own assumptions. We haven’t yet figured out how good care for learning works best in the age of the Internet and must ourselves still learn a lot. But we know enough, I think, to conclude that open access to all available information—right, wrong, or questionable—is as such not a sufficient condition for improved learning. In fact, there are reasons to suspect that it is not and that it may even be worse. On the Net one can sit in on some of the most profound dialogue but equally witness the limitless inanity of some other conversations. The proportions are unfortunately often not in favor of the former.
WE is but a small part of the entire learning landscape, but it is not insignificant. It is, in my view, an interesting environment for experimentation with and research on modalities of learning in a world in which the individual and collective management of information (and other resources) has dramatically changed. So, this is not a debate that should end. It should be pursued at a higher level and perhaps with a greater level of sensitivity towards the potentially huge differences in our perceptions of each other and each other’s perceptions.
I thank Phil for having posited the issues that triggered the discussion off.
Jan
--
Jan Visser, Ph.D.
President & Sr. Researcher, Learning Development Institute
E-mail: jvi...@learndev.org
Check out: http://www.learndev.org and http://www.facebook.com/learndev
Blog: http://jvisser-ldi.blogspot.com/
--
Edward Cherlin
<mackinto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Edward,
>
> 2009/11/29 Edward Cherlin wrote:
>>
>> Wayne, I fear that you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> My concern relates to assumptions you are making about what members of this
> list know or do not know.
say you meant. Anyway, what assumptions do you assume I am making?
You neither answered nor even acknowledged my question.
"Are you also a global warming denier/"skeptic"? Or just grotesquely
politically correct, treating all points of view as equally to be
respected? If it's something else, please tell us what."
> not the person. We treat people with mutual respect, recognising our diverse
> cultures.
>
> My post had nothing to do with global warming per se, but rather education
> in a broader context and what our community is about. This is the way we
> play the game in WikiEducator -- please respect our community values and how
> we interact with each other -- we have welcomed your membership with open
> arms respecting that everyone has value to contribute to education as a
> social good.
>
> There is a lot I don't know -- but I'm learning everyday.
>
> Cheers
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Wayne Mackintosh, Ph.D.
> Director,
> International Centre for Open Education,
> Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand.
> Board of Directors, OER Foundation.
> Founder and Community Council Member, Wikieducator, www.wikieducator.org
> Mobile +64 21 2436 380
> User Page: http://wikieducator.org/User:Mackiwg
> Skype: WGMNZ1
> Twitter: OERFoundation, Mackiwg
>
Steve Foerster
> Only if you are willfully ignorant, as I propose to demonstrate
> to you that you are.
someone so obnoxious, and frankly, I'm not one of them.
The irony here is that I'm not a climate change skeptic. I'm an
intelligent layperson who simply doesn't know who to believe. When I
said I could stand to learn more, amazingly, I actually meant it.
It's the "agree with me or you're a Nazi" approach that I won't
accept, not at all the actual position that happens to be underneath
it in this particular instance.
For what it's worth, I'm still interested to learn more. But I'll do
it from someone with a talent for communicating about science, not
from someone who responds to honest inquiry with arrogance and
disrespect.
Edward Cherlin
> I agree with Nellie that fear to listen may indeed be harmful, same as not
> realizing who our audience/readers, etc may be & how our own backgrounds
> model perceptions. But silence (understood as refusal to speak) can be
> equally pernicious for then unidirectional monologues replace any
> substantial dialogue despite individual impressions. No offence meant, but
> can’t but try a reading of the discussion:
>
> 1. Phil posts one of his great rants (top marks)
>
> 2. TALOnian Steven (“Sparks”) is well-known for his thought-provoking
> posts , leading to enriching discussion whether one agrees or not with his
> viewpoints J. If I recall correctly he’s rather environmental-conscious.
>
> 3. If I was living in the US amidst Creationism odds are I’d have a
> similar initial reaction to Edward’s; but I’m not, same as I think all the
> other people involved with this discussion (?).
in Korea, Japan, and the North of England (at the time when London was
somewhat occupied by Enoch Powell and IRA bombings). There is AIDS
denial all over Africa; Holocaust denial all over Europe, including
the UK; World War II denial in Japan; official Armenia denial in
Turkey; and so on. We have more of it than many in the US, but it is
your problem too.
> 4. Thanks Steven (Foerster) for voicing what many WE were likely to be
> thinking.
Global Warming science vs. the carbon fuel industry and their
scientific and political shills and common or garden variety dupes?
> 5. Wayne may have appeared as politically correct for
> community-building and peace-keeping reasons, was there any other way out?
> Does critical thinking involve being “incorrect” 24/7?
the basis of facts rather than what we wish to be true.
"Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own
facts."--Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Critical thinking includes not being a respecter of persons, as Paul
put it in Rom. 2:11. This means that all are welcome, regardless of
opinion, but nobody gets to hijack the conversation using the
techniques of McCarthyism, as Deniers routinely try to do.
> 6. Then Edward has turned it into a personal thing (or so it
> appears). I can’t help wondering why, this thread seemed rather promising in
> terms of intercultural awareness.
Steven and Wayne are in error. I am not attacking them as people. I do
not understand your usage of the phrase "intercultural awareness"
unless it refers to excessive political correctness. I will match my
intercultural _experience_ with anybody here, including my experiences
of Black and White cultures in Newark, New Jersey and Nashville,
Tennessee during the Civil Rights period, and my experiences of
scientific and pseudoscientific cultures, and education and
anti-education cultures. I go out of my way to talk to the deniers in
order to understand them better. I do not think of them as obstacles
to be swept away and otherwise ignored.
> 7. I’m not going to discuss pro/con Climate Change discourses for I’m
> no expert
found. The fundamental question is whether you can tell the difference
between the scientific work and the opposition on the basis of the
methods used. How do you understand the scientific method? How do you
understand the McCarthyist method?
> and when debates are rather heated & receive ample media coverage
> I normally become skeptical and focus on the underlying political-economic
> interests.
denial. One is the obvious financial interest of carbon fuel
companies, who are financing the other.
The second requires understanding US political history, specifically
the Republican Southern Strategy of pandering to racists and to
intolerant, racist, Southern White churches. The racists are fighting
the American Civil War, or as they call it the War of Northern
Aggression, for the third time. The second was the Civil Rights
Movement of the 1960s. The Lost Cause is losing yet again, as its
population base shrinks steadily. Projection of opinion poll results
from decades past indicates that they will become minorities in every
state by 2024, obviously with some margin of error. At that point they
will be able to elect their own kind locally (city, county, House of
Representatives), but not statewide (Governor, Senator) or nationally
(President and Vice President).
Much of the agenda of the South and the extended Bible and Book of
Mormon belt is denial of Federal authority over civil rights and
resistance to social programs. In the current overheated political
atmosphere (haha) this includes accusing President Obama of tyranny
and every possible political and religious sin, up to and including
being the Antichrist or the Devil himself (Bill O'Reilly to Lou
Dobbs). It also includes opposing every item in the "Liberal agenda".
(BTW, Liberal in the US has nearly the opposite meaning from what it
signifies elsewhere.) So they are against Keynesian economic rescue of
the economy with the Stimulus Package; any meaningful form of National
Health; any taxes that could possibly be spent on social programs for
despised minorities, women, or immigrants; Gay rights of any kind, but
especially Gay marriage; education in critical thinking, on
"Darwinism", and on sex; and any form of Environmentalism. See
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Code_words,
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Lies_and_Lying_Liars
Racists in the South and Plains states vote constantly against their
own economic interests. (see What's the Matter with Kansas?) They
insist on being better off and of higher status than the riff-raff at
any cost, even if that means not being as prosperous as they could be.
(see Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class) And the world
can go to Hell for all they care. It isn't as if it's going to be
around long enough for the effects of Global Warming to be important.
What is important is to convince all of the Jews to move to Israel so
that Armageddon and the Rapture can begin. Here are some choice
examples from the current frontrunner for the Republican Presidential
nomination in 2012. Palin is also a Global Warming denier and
suppressor of scientific research, with the slogan, "Drill, baby,
drill!"
#
Sarah Palin's Alaskan Armageddon (Clips)
2 min 33 sec - Sep 7, 2008 -
Rated 4.6 out of 5.0
Is this the kind of person we really want with her finger on the big
red button? Notice how she nods in agreement with the pastor when he
says Alaska ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8twqZpUT2NQ - Related videos -
#
Sarah Palin's Church tied to Jesus Camp Armageddon Dogma - tazlmo ...
Just think about an Armageddon ready army of Sarah Palin followers
willing to subvert your will and force you into religious submission
on pain of death, ...
open.salon.com/.../sarah_palins_church_tied_to_jesus_camp_armageddon_dogma
- Cached - Similar -
#
CNN finally reports on Sarah Palin's Armageddon church
CNN finally reports on Sarah Palin's quote on Iraq war 'a task from
God' and Armageddon church. Pretty far-right stuff.
digg.com/.../CNN_finally_reports_on_Sarah_Palin_s_Armageddon_church - Cached -
#
t r u t h o u t | Sarah Palin: A Gidget for God's Truth
... which raises questions about what sort of Armageddon she has in
mind. ... Sarah Palin is their gal, and if she is elected vice
president, these warriors ...
www.truthout.org/article/sarah-palin-a-gidget-gods-truth - Cached - Similar -
#
Sarah Palin, Israel and Armageddon | The Atlantic Wire
A stray comment about Israel gets pundits wondering if Palin expects
the Rapture sometime soon.
atlanticwire.theatlantic.com/.../Sarah-Palin-Israel-and-Armageddon-1694
- Cached -
#
Sarah Palin, Israel and Armageddon | Iranian.com
Nov 23, 2009 ... Sarah Palin, Israel and Armageddon. The Atlantic Wire
/ The Atlandic Wire. 23-Nov-2009. Sarah Palin remarked to Barbara
Walters last week ...
www.iranian.com/main/news/.../sarah-palin-israel-and-armageddon - Cached -
#
Theocratic Sect Prays for Real Armageddon | | AlterNet
53 posts - 5 authors - Last post: Sep 7, 2008
They see Armageddon as a foregone conclusion, ... be doubted for
having the shrewdness of mind to pick Governor Palin as his running
mate. ...
www.alternet.org/.../theocratic_sect_prays_for_real_armageddon/?... -
Cached - Similar -
#
Is Sarah Palin a Dominionist? (It's the Armageddon, stupid ...
Sep 8, 2008 ... This video I saw on Huffington Post. The video itself
is something of a mess, with a bunch of jump-cut clips from various
video sources, ...
mediagirl.org › Blogs › media girl's blog - Cached - Similar -
#
Sarah Palin's Alaskan Armageddon (Clips) - Democratic Underground
I put this short video together from readily available video of
Palin's church. I could have added more, but I think a short video is
more effective and ...
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az...all... - Cached -
#
Sarah Palin, Israel and Armageddon - Sarah Palin Gossip
Nov 20, 2009 ... Sarah Palin, Israel and Armageddon - Sarah Palin
remarked to Barbara Walters last week that she believes "more and more
Jewish people will ...
celebrifi.com/.../Sarah-Palin-Israel-and-Armageddon-1101376.html - Cached -
> Striking that so-called “ecological” fuels such as ethanol are
> behind recent further deforestation in Peru & Brazil, as well as wheat
> scarcity, price increases and food riots around the world.
and to NAFTA, are killing people worldwide, and ironically driving
illegal immigration from Mexico.
> I really hope WE all learn something from this & move forward!
Wayne Mackintosh
I fail to see any connection between what you said, and what you now
say you meant. Anyway, what assumptions do you assume I am making?
You neither answered nor even acknowledged my question.
"Are you also a global warming denier/"skeptic"? Or just grotesquely
politically correct, treating all points of view as equally to be
respected? If it's something else, please tell us what."
We assume good faith in WikiEducator.
Trolls live under bridges -- however, not everyone under a bridge is a troll. See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_is_a_troll%3F
I hope this is not the case, because there are significant educational related issues in this thread --- but I don't want to feed any trolls.
Cheers
Wayne
Jan Visser
On the other hand, Edward, while you apparently fail to see the connection between Wayne's two posts, I had no problem seeing how they are related to each other and the conversation that had been going on.
While I agree with the points you made in your first post concerning this subject, I find it unfortunate that the tone you increasingly choose for this dialogue is one of confrontation rather than of collaborative exploration of a complex area of concern. It is surely unhelpful in such a situation to demand that participants in the conversation declare upfront which side they are on as if 'yes' or 'no' are the only possible alternatives. A friend theoretical physicist at the CNRS in Paris, Basarab Nicolescu, once called this the "unfathomable pornography of binary thinking."
Also, as another friend recently pointed out to me and a couple of other colleagues in a discussion about ‘building the scientific mind’, there is a huge difference between ‘asking a question’ and ‘having a question.’ The fact that you asked a question does not necessarily mean that you should be given an answer.
I also find it unfortunate that you seem to equate denial and skepticism. Skepticism connotes thoughtfulness, exploration, consideration. Denial is close to the opposite of these notions. I would only hope that all who participate in this dialogue, whatever position they may find themselves comfortable with at a particular moment, are skeptics.
More importantly, this dialogue was not meant to be about the science and politics of climate change. Rather, the way Phil voiced it initially, it was meant to be about how an educational community that is dedicated to providing open educational resources, such as WE, should deal with issues around which there is controversy. I propose we bring the discussion back to that issue or otherwise consider it closed for now for the simple reason that we don’t seem to advance. We can always take it up later again.
Jan
--
Jan Visser, Ph.D.
President & Sr. Researcher, Learning Development Institute
E-mail: jvi...@learndev.org
Check out: http://www.learndev.org and http://www.facebook.com/learndev
Blog: http://jvisser-ldi.blogspot.com/
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 01:08, Wayne Mackintosh
Edward Cherlin
questions about your understanding of Global Warming, and now you take
my offer to assist you as an insult. I take this as evidence (not
proof) that your ignorance _is_ willful. You have an opportunity to
demonstrate otherwise, by responding to my previous message with the
CO2 and other data and the questions.
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:41, Steve Foerster <st...@hiresteve.com> wrote:
> Edward wrote:
>
>> Only if you are willfully ignorant, as I propose to demonstrate
>> to you that you are.
>
> Very few people would be inclined to continue a conversation with
> someone so obnoxious, and frankly, I'm not one of them.
of my best friends (O irony) is a Holocaust Denier and much worse.
Certainly they don't always enjoy it, but we have made some progress,
and they are usually willing to continue.
> The irony here is that I'm not a climate change skeptic. I'm an
> intelligent layperson who simply doesn't know who to believe.
> When I
> said I could stand to learn more, amazingly, I actually meant it.
> It's the "agree with me or you're a Nazi" approach that I won't
> accept,
Do you talk to the Cosmos this way? Nature doesn't care what we wish
to be true. We have to deal with what _is_ true.
A man said to the Universe,
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," the Universe replied,
"That fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
--Stephen Crane
A traveler, perceiving the pathway to truth,
Was struck with astonishment.
It was thickly grown with weeds.
"I see," he said, "that nobody has passed here
In a long time."
Later, he perceived that each blade
Was a singular knife.
"Well," he mumbled at last,
"Doubtless there are other ways."
--also Stephen Crane
>not at all the actual position that happens to be underneath
> it in this particular instance.
>
> For what it's worth, I'm still interested to learn more. But I'll do
> it from someone with a talent for communicating about science, not
> from someone who responds to honest inquiry with arrogance and
> disrespect.
truth. I thought you were willing to face facts, pleasant or not. Your
quarrel is with the facts, not with me.
Edward Cherlin
to accusation, sort of, almost.
I have some experience of being trolled by the competent and the
incompetent, and I can assure you that if _I_ wanted to troll this
list you wouldn't know I was doing it. ^_^ The best practitioners (in
part because they are non-malicious) are to be found in the
alt.religion.kibology Newsgroup.
kirby urner
<< snip >>
>
> Let's hear it then from the rest of you. What are your issues with
> Global Warming science vs. the carbon fuel industry and their
> scientific and political shills and common or garden variety dupes?
>
Our little think tank, isepp.org, meeting @ Linus Pauling's boyhood
home in Portland, Oregon, have talked over GW and/or GCC extensively,
including in our Yahoo! archives.
This is the heart of the Silicon Forest and we pride ourselves on
being engineers, good ones.
The decision tree is clear and you spell it out: is there a warming
trend (yes or no) and if yes, are humans responsible to some degree?
I think you and I would say "yes" and "yes".
But then there's a pause point we need to insert: is humanity having
responsibility for climate change a bad thing? If we have long term
plans to terraform Mars (some say we do), then we need to get our sea
legs with this Gaia Hypothesis (appears to be correct) and start
realizing that GCC is somewhat under the conscious control of humans.
Will they be able to self-organize successfully? Somehow that's
always the question, in every age.
Remember that vast climate cycling is characteristic of this planet so
that even without human influence, we were expecting another Ice Age
soon.
If humans have found a way to play with thermostat, that could come in handy.
On the other hand, giant geodesic domes inside of which we have
climate control, outside of which we have much less (because we don't
control solar cycling), may be the evolutionary trend, not claiming to
be all-knowing.
Such pockets of climate control (inside domes) is already a feature in
UK architecture (Cornwall) as you probably know. We study this place
in Martian Math (my WikiEducator topic).
In sum, I don't see "no change" as in any way normal for climate.
It's all about cycling and changing.
That humans are now butting in at a level that really changes the
ocean water levels is a somewhat new development and we're gaining the
consciousness to go with it, which is what one would expect. The
design is intelligent i.e. self aware and adapting, one might say that
without thumping a Bible.
I am entirely unaware of what has so far been uploaded to Wikieducator
in the way of Gaia Hypothesis literature. Lynn Margulis is a good
source of information on early Earthian biotica, the different gaseous
makeups one may take as evidence of biomass activity. These gas
disequilibria are what spectrometers look for in seeking the chemistry
of life on other planets.
Kirby
Edward Cherlin
> On the other hand, Edward, while you apparently fail to see the connection
> between Wayne's two posts, I had no problem seeing how they are related to
> each other and the conversation that had been going on.
> While I agree with the points you made in your first post concerning this
> subject, I find it unfortunate that the tone you increasingly choose for
> this dialogue is one of confrontation rather than of collaborative
> exploration of a complex area of concern. It is surely unhelpful in such a
> situation to demand that participants in the conversation declare upfront
> which side they are on as if 'yes' or 'no' are the only possible
> alternatives.
> A friend theoretical physicist at the CNRS in Paris, Basarab
> Nicolescu, once called this the "unfathomable pornography of binary
> thinking."
> Also, as another friend recently pointed out to me and a couple of other
> colleagues in a discussion about ‘building the scientific mind’, there is a
> huge difference between ‘asking a question’ and ‘having a question.’ The
> fact that you asked a question does not necessarily mean that you should be
> given an answer.
> I also find it unfortunate that you seem to equate denial and skepticism.
denying that they are denying.
> Skepticism connotes thoughtfulness, exploration, consideration. Denial is
> close to the opposite of these notions.
and theory rigorously. Pseudoscientists are deniers of data, theories,
competence, and motives. Everything in science is to them conspiracy.
Why would scientists conspire? I have never heard a plausible theory
of why, nor of how. Conspiracy at that level is hard. Some joker is
bound to leak the plan.
But those are not the only two choices. There are the innocent
ignorant and the willfully ignorant as well. The Talmud distinguishes
He who knows not; and knows not that he knows not
is a fool, shun him.
He who knows not; and knows that he knows not
is a child, teach him.
He who knows; and knows not that he knows
is asleep, wake him.
He who knows; and know that he knows
is wise, follow him.
but there are further distinctions to be made.
> I would only hope that all who
> participate in this dialogue, whatever position they may find themselves
> comfortable with at a particular moment, are skeptics.
> More importantly, this dialogue was not meant to be about the science and
> politics of climate change. Rather, the way Phil voiced it initially, it was
> meant to be about how an educational community that is dedicated to
> providing open educational resources, such as WE, should deal with issues
> around which there is controversy. I propose we bring the discussion back to
> that issue or otherwise consider it closed for now for the simple reason
> that we don’t seem to advance. We can always take it up later again.
issues, and not by putting them aside. It is too timorous to reject
the possibility that a discussion can make progress and illuminate the
larger question before it has even been joined seriously.
Edward Cherlin
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Edward Cherlin <eche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> << snip >>
>
>> Let's hear it then from the rest of you. What are your issues with
>> Global Warming science vs. the carbon fuel industry and their
>> scientific and political shills and common or garden variety dupes?
>
> Hey there Ed, nice chatting, see you on on edu-sig (Python.org) sometimes too.
> Our little think tank, isepp.org, meeting @ Linus Pauling's boyhood
> home in Portland, Oregon, have talked over GW and/or GCC extensively,
> including in our Yahoo! archives.
>
> This is the heart of the Silicon Forest and we pride ourselves on
> being engineers, good ones.
>
> The decision tree is clear and you spell it out: is there a warming
> trend (yes or no) and if yes, are humans responsible to some degree?
>
> I think you and I would say "yes" and "yes".
The full scientific decision tree has had tens of thousands of
decision points so far, and many more to come. They tend to be of the
form, "This observation/model/theory/what have you may be extremely
important, therefore we should put significant resources into
confirming or refuting it, and to improving it." The policy tree has
to ask and answer quite different questions. For example, "What are
the upside and downside of the science for the economy, the
environment, and human survival on scales from purely local to
global?" "At what point should we spend money to avert possible
catastrophe?" "Wait, could we _save_ money by going to renewable
power?"
An expenditure of $3 billion on levees would have prevented the flood
in New Orleans, which has cost well over a hundred billion dollars in
damage and associated expense, and the politically deliberate
destruction of any possibility of recreating that part of the city.
The people who gave us that disaster are the ones arguing against both
science and policy today.
> But then there's a pause point we need to insert: is humanity having
> responsibility for climate change a bad thing? If we have long term
> plans to terraform Mars (some say we do),
rearranging the deck chairs on the plans for the successor to the
Titanic.
> then we need to get our sea
> legs with this Gaia Hypothesis (appears to be correct)
> and start
> realizing that GCC is somewhat under the conscious control of humans.
The Chernobyl reactor "accident" was intended as a safety experiment,
or rather, demonstration, because management assumed that they knew
what they were doing. They ordered the engineers to turn off all five
safety systems, allow an excursion, and then turn the safety systems
on again to restore the reactor to normal operation.
The two Space Shuttle disasters were caused primarily by managers
overriding engineers, not by the engineering problems with the design.
We now have much of the management of Spaceship Earth far more
concerned with corporate profit and assorted racist and sectarian
hatreds than with human and global welfare.
Many of the leaders in Easter Island society recognized that cutting
down the last trees to raise bigger and bigger statues would be
disastrous, but Conspicuous Consumption prevailed. If the tentative
results of the latest climate science are correct, we have done that
to ourselves, and cannot prevent the disaster. So I hope that our
worst fears are wrong, but I will not fudge the data or the results to
make anybody feel better about themselves.
> Will they be able to self-organize successfully? Somehow that's
> always the question, in every age.
>
> Remember that vast climate cycling is characteristic of this planet so
> that even without human influence, we were expecting another Ice Age
> soon.
theory, even before Global Warming became so dire, that humans had
already changed the cycle of ice ages through agriculture, and that is
why the current ten-thousand year interglacial has been longer than
any other of the current climate age. Hooray for us if so, up to a
point that we have now reached.
> If humans have found a way to play with thermostat, that could come in handy.
> On the other hand, giant geodesic domes inside of which we have
> climate control, outside of which we have much less (because we don't
> control solar cycling), may be the evolutionary trend, not claiming to
> be all-knowing.
>
> Such pockets of climate control (inside domes) is already a feature in
> UK architecture (Cornwall) as you probably know. We study this place
> in Martian Math (my WikiEducator topic).
>
> In sum, I don't see "no change" as in any way normal for climate.
> It's all about cycling and changing.
>
> That humans are now butting in at a level that really changes the
> ocean water levels is a somewhat new development and we're gaining the
> consciousness to go with it, which is what one would expect. The
> design is intelligent i.e. self aware and adapting, one might say that
> without thumping a Bible.
>
> I am entirely unaware of what has so far been uploaded to Wikieducator
> in the way of Gaia Hypothesis literature. Lynn Margulis is a good
> source of information on early Earthian biotica, the different gaseous
> makeups one may take as evidence of biomass activity. These gas
> disequilibria are what spectrometers look for in seeking the chemistry
> of life on other planets.
>
> Kirby
>
kirby urner
>> = Kirby (me)
> = Edward
= Kirby
>> The decision tree is clear and you spell it out: is there a warming
>> trend (yes or no) and if yes, are humans responsible to some degree?
>>
>> I think you and I would say "yes" and "yes".
>
> There is much more to the tree, and much more to any serious answer.
knowledge as to what's on Wikieducator and for the purposes of this
list, I'm willing to focus on those pages, just like on edu-sig
(Python.org), I'm focused on Python modules (e.g. mine), you on Turtle
Art (XO-based, though maybe x-platform?).
> The full scientific decision tree has had tens of thousands of
> decision points so far, and many more to come.
with my teenager, sitting in my Silicon Forest domicile (we have real
trees too).
> A question that has some interest, but currently comes over as
> rearranging the deck chairs on the plans for the successor to the
> Titanic.
>
factual axis, not saying either is most important (you need facts to
have ethics, last I checked).
Of course losing the Titanic was a real tragedy and a disaster, I'm
not disputing that, likewise have fond feelings towards Spaceship
Earth, keep my misanthropy (a mild case) in check on most days (I'm
primarily a philanthropist, work for CSN, a chain of philanthropic
casinos designed to pump funds to worthy causes (Casino Math is
another Wikieducator page I'm working on these days)).
>> then we need to get our sea
>> legs with this Gaia Hypothesis (appears to be correct)
>
> There are many versions. I don't know which one you mean.
>
purpose was just to get in the ballpark and give a rough idea of my
thinking, not drill down (or in) too deeply.
Mostly what I say in cocktail parties is I only respect the opinion of
Dutch engineers on the matter of global warming (they're pretty
serious about it for obvious reasons). That's of course just a polite
way of changing the subject.
>> and start
>> realizing that GCC is somewhat under the conscious control of humans.
>
> Past time.
>
>> If humans have found a way to play with thermostat, that could come in handy.
>
> Matches are handy, but I don't see any value in letting children play with them.
>
which is risky in terms of what kind of prophet you want to sound
like.
Given you seem to study the internal affairs of the USA's southeast
e.g. Alabama, I'm speculating as to what extent you yourself might be
influenced by Biblical models, even though you're on the record as not
being especially Biblical.
The Middle Eastern religions tend to be patriarchal in outlook and to
encourage a kind of cantankerous "father knows best" attitude among
older men. They come off sounding patronizing. You and I have never
met so I'm clearly in no position to have an informed view, just
wondering.
We should have a beer someday or other drink in a social setting so
that we might continue our mutual evaluation and assessment.
In the meantime, I mostly only discuss GCC with Dutch engineers (my
line on the ISEPP list as well, where I mostly stay with other
topics).
More my typical banter (flavor of ice cream):
http://mail.geneseo.edu/pipermail/math-thinking-l/2009-November/001329.html
More soon maybe, over on edu-sig perhaps? I'm been trying to find out
how we do extended precision decimal stuff in Scheme. Pretty easy no?
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/edu-sig/2009-November/009675.html
Kirby Urner
isepp.org (board)
python.org (voting member)
wikieducator.org (wikibuddy)
--
>>> from mars import math
http://www.wikieducator.org/Martian_Math
Edward Cherlin
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Edward Cherlin <eche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> = Kirby (me)
>> = Edward
> = Kirby
> Dutch engineers on the matter of global warming (they're pretty
> serious about it for obvious reasons). That's of course just a polite
> way of changing the subject.
>
>>> and start
>>> realizing that GCC is somewhat under the conscious control of humans.
>>
>> Past time.
>>
>
> So here you celebrate and welcome GCC being under the CC of humans...
choice about having control, only whether it is in fact conscious.
>>> If humans have found a way to play with thermostat, that could come in handy.
>>
>> Matches are handy, but I don't see any value in letting children play with them.
>>
>
> ... but here you seem more ambivalent, looking at humans as children,
> which is risky in terms of what kind of prophet you want to sound
> like.
not humanity as a whole.
> Given you seem to study the internal affairs of the USA's southeast
> e.g. Alabama, I'm speculating as to what extent you yourself might be
> influenced by Biblical models, even though you're on the record as not
> being especially Biblical.
a remarkable record of a people going from tribal barbarism, with
genocide and other major issues, to some of the highest ideals of
conduct, education ("...neither shall they learn war any more."),
government, and so on. I mostly favor Ecclesiastes and Job, but there
are many other good bits.
> The Middle Eastern religions tend to be patriarchal in outlook and to
> encourage a kind of cantankerous "father knows best" attitude among
> older men. They come off sounding patronizing. You and I have never
> met so I'm clearly in no position to have an informed view, just
> wondering.
"You are all individuals!"
Crowd: "We are all individuals!"
Individual: "I'm not."
> We should have a beer someday or other drink in a social setting so
> that we might continue our mutual evaluation and assessment.
> In the meantime, I mostly only discuss GCC with Dutch engineers (my
> line on the ISEPP list as well, where I mostly stay with other
> topics).
> Kirby Urner
>
> isepp.org (board)
> python.org (voting member)
> wikieducator.org (wikibuddy)
>
> --
>>>> from mars import math
> http://www.wikieducator.org/Martian_Math
>
Wayne Mackintosh
I'm pleased that you're not trolling -- a man with your intellect and skill would do a good job.
For the record -- I think global warming is a major issue for the planet, and that pseudo scientists can do considerable damage (a.k.a. drug research).
That said -- our list has its own unique genre and "culture" of communication - while not everyone's cup of tea, it seems to work for us.
Cheers
Wayne
--
Steven Parker
the point I was originally making that contentious issues need a
platform with 'Climategate' as an example for those who are still
interested in what's happening.
The Telegraph and Times have published this article on the University
of East Anglia destroying the climate data for the past 150 years upon
being pressed under the Freedom of Information act. Pretty shocking to
me that this has occurred preventing other scientists to verify the
results.
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed
to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
Climate change data dumped
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
“The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling
questions and resolving debates with science,” he said."
"(Jones) He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is
“unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by
humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global
warming is a threat to humanity."
Also other IPCC scientists are turning on each other. Dr. Eduardo
Zorita writes: “CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann (Of Hockey
Stick debacle fame), Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred
from the IPCC process.”
"These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is
a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very
well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and
I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and
authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based
on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly
blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to
tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some,
or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy
makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties
under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this
in my area of research."
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/myview.html
Doesn't surprise me. Lots more revelations to come, great resources to
talk around the science and politics of climate change with students.
Cheers
NELLIE DEUTSCH
As an educator, I would like to make a difference they only way I know how and that is by educating people to become aware and perhaps change their habits to that we can save what we can.
I would love to move this to WikiEducator the best platform I know and begin the process. Steven, you are welcome to
begin adding the information that you have and I will be more than happy to create workshops so we can engage participants
in the process of learning.
Thank you.
Warm wishes,
Nellie Deutsch
Sharing is Caring!
Doctoral Student
Educational Leadership
Curriculum and Instruction
Integrating Technology for Active Life-long Learning (IT4ALL) http://www.integrating-technology.com/pd
Get ready for CO10 at WiZiQ: http://connecting-online.ning.com/
Free online workshops using WiZiQ: http://www.wikieducator.org/Workshops
Edward Cherlin
> Alot of passionate opinion here, alot has been shared, to get back to
> the point I was originally making that contentious issues need a
> platform with 'Climategate' as an example for those who are still
> interested in what's happening.
we can agree that at least one side is lying or deluded. Now we have
to determine which. How would you suggest we go about it? We could set
up a set of Wiki pages for the facts, the charges and countercharges,
and how we might teach this controversy.
> The Telegraph and Times have published this article on the University
> of East Anglia destroying the climate data for the past 150 years upon
> being pressed under the Freedom of Information act. Pretty shocking to
> me that this has occurred preventing other scientists to verify the
> results.
>
> Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
> Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed
> to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
>
> Climate change data dumped
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were
collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored
on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU
moved to a new building."
Do you think they are lying?
> “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling
> questions and resolving debates with science,” he said."
>
> "(Jones) He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is
> “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by
> humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by
> the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global
> warming is a threat to humanity."
>
> Also other IPCC scientists are turning on each other. Dr. Eduardo
> Zorita writes: “CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann (Of Hockey
> Stick debacle fame), Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred
> from the IPCC process.”
>
> "These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is
> a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very
> well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and
> I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and
> authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based
> on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly
> blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to
> tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some,
> or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy
> makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties
> under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this
> in my area of research."
>
> Doesn't surprise me. Lots more revelations to come, great resources to
> talk around the science and politics of climate change with students.
>
> Cheers
>
NELLIE DEUTSCH
Let's stop speculating and let's start moving. We can always edit and make changes; after all that's the wiki way on WikiEducator.
Warm wishes,
Nellie Deutsch
Sharing is Caring!
Doctoral Student
Educational Leadership
Curriculum and Instruction
Integrating Technology for Active Life-long Learning (IT4ALL) http://www.integrating-technology.com/pd
Get ready for CO10 at WiZiQ: http://connecting-online.ning.com/
Free online workshops using WiZiQ: http://www.wikieducator.org/Workshops
Edward Cherlin
Edward Cherlin
http://wikieducator.org/Global_warming
Would you like to set up a Climate Skepticism page?
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 02:24, Edward Cherlin <eche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 01:31, Steven Parker <spar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Alot of passionate opinion here, alot has been shared, to get back to
>> the point I was originally making that contentious issues need a
>> platform with 'Climategate' as an example for those who are still
>> interested in what's happening.
>
> Every element of this story is contradicted by other stories. I think
> we can agree that at least one side is lying or deluded. Now we have
> to determine which. How would you suggest we go about it? We could set
> up a set of Wiki pages for the facts, the charges and countercharges,
> and how we might teach this controversy.
Jan Visser
I have no time at present to check the detail of all the information provided in newspaper articles and am particularly unable, when reading a newspaper report, to check the quality and veracity of the interpretation of what actually happened.
I do know, however, and have evidence to back it up, that the scientific community is quite capable of identifying breaches of ethics, reporting them, and taking appropriate measures to repair the damage. One need but go through the past several years of Nature and Science to find the various instances in which published papers were retracted, sometimes at the request of the researchers themselves when they found that something had gone wrong in carrying out their research, sometimes following the discovery of deliberate fraud. I know few other areas of human endeavor where such rigorous self-control within the community exists. Typically, newspapers, whatever their high quality from on investigative journalism point of view may be, should not be considered reliable sources for validation. The final validation of recognized error or established committed fraud is still best done by the scientific community itself. I thus look forward to reading about the outcome of such processes in the relevant scientific literature.
On the basis of what I know so far (and knew already before this conversation started), there is reason to be alert to the possibility that the mix of politics, science, and corporate interest that surrounds climate change, in addition to the propensity in humans (members of the general public) to wish to believe what they already believe, may potentially lead to biased research and even fraud (as well as to advocacy that is based on erroneous interpretation of scientific findings and conclusions). Alertness to such dangers has always been a key ingredient of the collective mindset within the scientific community. In some cases the danger is more prominent and more obviously present than in others. Investigative journalism plays a role, though, just as it does in politics. It is sometimes at the origin of identifying fraud. Besides, newspapers, when they have good science reporters on their staff, also play a great role in bringing the results of research and their societal implications to the attention of their readership. So, wait till the Times reports on what eventually appears in the relevant literature and then check the newspaper report against the cited literature if, as a scientist, you want to help the public understand the issues well and are thus willing to write letters to the editor to back up or challenge the reporting.
Validity of what is offered in an open environment like WE is very important from an educational point of view. Users of WE must be able to trust that the utmost has been done to ensure the validity of what they get offered. In saying so, I am assuming that the WE audience has insufficient prior knowledge to make the validity judgments themselves. If that assumption is wrong, then we should perhaps clearly state upfront (on the WE home page) what we expect our target audience to be capable of. We should certainly have internal agreement on it. This may be worth some debate, if it is not already entirely obvious.
Jan
--
Jan Visser, Ph.D.
President & Sr. Researcher, Learning Development Institute
E-mail: jvi...@learndev.org
Check out: http://www.learndev.org and http://www.facebook.com/learndev
Blog: http://jvisser-ldi.blogspot.com/
Randy Fisher
Nellie raises a great point - and again part of the issue is why the Liquid Threads communications functionality on the wiki doesn't work so well. She has developed an elegant workaround by creating Discussions and Feedback pages on her courses.... but for the rest of us, the lack of reliable talk notifications and talk functionality diminishes WE's effectiveness.
- Randy
Open Education is a sustainable and renewable resource.
________________
Randy Fisher, MA, OMD
Senior Consultant, Organization Development, Intersol Group, Canada
Senior Consultant, Organization & Business Development
International Centre for Open Education / OER Foundation, New Zealand
Elected Member, WikiEducator Community Council, www.wikieducator.org
+1 613.230.6424 x144 (EST)
Skype: wikirandy
Twitter: wikirandy
* Stakeholder Engagement, Change / Transition Management & Performance
* Organization Design & Development
* Sustainable Project Implementation & Community-Building
* E-Learning, Online Collaboration & Communities of Practice
* Coaching & Facilitation
* My Bio: http://www.communitybuildingexpert.com
Jan Visser
In addition to my earlier post today, here is an example of a news item just posted by ‘The Scientist’ (http://www.the-scientist.com).
News:
Science paper pulled
Posted by Jef Akst
[Entry posted at 30th November 2009 03:26 PM GMT]
Researchers are retracting a highly-cited 2004 Science paper describing a new way of adding sugars to proteins -- a longstanding challenge in molecular biology -- citing their inability to repeat the results and the absence of the original lab notebooks with the experiment details, they announced in Science last Thursday (November 26).
I am merely citing the opening paragraph. The story is much longer, but for copyright reasons I can’t cite it in its entirety.
It’s a nice example of self-correction within the science community, I think.
Jan
--
Jan Visser, Ph.D.
President & Sr. Researcher, Learning Development Institute
E-mail: jvi...@learndev.org
Check out: http://www.learndev.org and http://www.facebook.com/learndev
Blog: http://jvisser-ldi.blogspot.com/
From: Jan Visser
[mailto:jvi...@learndev.org]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009
2:09 PM
To: wikied...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Denialism (was Re:
[WikiEducator] Phil's Rants)
I have no time at present to check the detail of all the information provided in newspaper articles and am particularly unable, when reading a newspaper report, to check the quality and veracity of the interpretation of what actually happened.
I do know, however, and have evidence to back it up, that the scientific community is quite capable of identifying breaches of ethics, reporting them, and taking appropriate measures to repair the damage. One need but go through the past several years of Nature and Science to find the various instances in which published papers were retracted, sometimes at the request of the researchers themselves when they found that something had gone wrong in carrying out their research, sometimes following the discovery of deliberate fraud. I know few other areas of human endeavor where such rigorous self-control within the community exists. Typically, newspapers, whatever their high quality from on investigative journalism point of view may be, should not be considered reliable sources for validation. The final validation of recognized error or established committed fraud is still best done by the scientific community itself. I thus look forward to reading about the outcome of such processes in the relevant scientific literature.
On the basis of what I know so far (and knew already before this conversation started), there is reason to be alert to the possibility that the mix of politics, science, and corporate interest that surrounds climate change, in addition to the propensity in humans (members of the general public) to wish to believe what they already believe, may potentially lead to biased research and even fraud (as well as to advocacy that is based on erroneous interpretation of scientific findings and conclusions). Alertness to such dangers has always been a key ingredient of the collective mindset within the scientific community. In some cases the danger is more prominent and more obviously present than in others. Investigative journalism plays a role, though, just as it does in politics. It is sometimes at the origin of identifying fraud. Besides, newspapers, when they have good science reporters on their staff, also play a great role in bringing the results of research and their societal implications to the attention of their readership. So, wait till the Times reports on what eventually appears in the relevant literature and then check the newspaper report against the cited literature if, as a scientist, you want to help the public understand the issues well and are thus willing to write letters to the editor to back up or challenge the reporting.
Validity of what is offered in an open environment like WE is very important from an educational point of view. Users of WE must be able to trust that the utmost has been done to ensure the validity of what they get offered. In saying so, I am assuming that the WE audience has insufficient prior knowledge to make the validity judgments themselves. If that assumption is wrong, then we should perhaps clearly state upfront (on the WE home page) what we expect our target audience to be capable of. We should certainly have internal agreement on it. This may be worth some debate, if it is not already entirely obvious.
Jan
Edward Cherlin
I want the ability to judge science vs. pseudoscience debates to be a
fundamental part of education. I don't expect anybody to get to the
point of judging science vs. science debates, which even scientists
cannot do until the needed data arrive.
The fallacies of pseudoscientific debate are not too many to grasp.
They include cherry-picking data, selective quotation, refusing to
provide sources, failing to do their own research, pretending to be
greater in number than they are, demanding proof, accusing scientists
and others of massive conspiracy, claiming that the slightest error
invalidates a whole field of research, and others. I can explain each,
and provide detailed examples. I intend at some point to get a book
project going on this subject at an appropriate grade level.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 05:08, Jan Visser <jvi...@learndev.org> wrote:
> I have no time at present to check the detail of all the information
> provided in newspaper articles and am particularly unable, when reading a
> newspaper report, to check the quality and veracity of the interpretation of
> what actually happened.
and the reporting, but because of some hostility to me doing that, I
won't to begin with. I have created two new pages, one on Global
Warming, and one on Evolution, listing a selection of books and DVDs
on each subject in alphabetical ordero all available on Amazon, and
most with Look Inside browsing provided. I invite a discussion, where
we can play out a version of what we hope to get schoolchildren to do.
> I do know, however, and have evidence to back it up, that the scientific
> community is quite capable of identifying breaches of ethics, reporting
> them, and taking appropriate measures to repair the damage. One need but go
> through the past several years of Nature and Science to find the various
> instances in which published papers were retracted, sometimes at the request
> of the researchers themselves when they found that something had gone wrong
> in carrying out their research, sometimes following the discovery of
> deliberate fraud. I know few other areas of human endeavor where such
> rigorous self-control within the community exists. Typically, newspapers,
> whatever their high quality from on investigative journalism point of view
> may be, should not be considered reliable sources for validation. The final
> validation of recognized error or established committed fraud is still best
> done by the scientific community itself. I thus look forward to reading
> about the outcome of such processes in the relevant scientific literature.
> On the basis of what I know so far (and knew already before this
> conversation started), there is reason to be alert to the possibility that
> the mix of politics, science, and corporate interest that surrounds climate
> change, in addition to the propensity in humans (members of the general
> public) to wish to believe what they already believe, may potentially lead
> to biased research and even fraud (as well as to advocacy that is based on
> erroneous interpretation of scientific findings and conclusions).
not to distract anyone from the main point.
> Alertness
> to such dangers has always been a key ingredient of the collective mindset
> within the scientific community. In some cases the danger is more prominent
> and more obviously present than in others. Investigative journalism plays a
> role, though, just as it does in politics. It is sometimes at the origin of
> identifying fraud. Besides, newspapers, when they have good science
> reporters on their staff, also play a great role in bringing the results of
> research and their societal implications to the attention of their
> readership. So, wait till the Times reports on what eventually appears in
> the relevant literature and then check the newspaper report against the
> cited literature if, as a scientist, you want to help the public understand
> the issues well and are thus willing to write letters to the editor to back
> up or challenge the reporting.
authoritative, given that it makes mistakes and has a point of view.
This will be part of a more general evaluation of sources.
> Validity of what is offered in an open environment like WE is very important
> from an educational point of view. Users of WE must be able to trust that
> the utmost has been done to ensure the validity of what they get offered. In
> saying so, I am assuming that the WE audience has insufficient prior
> knowledge to make the validity judgments themselves. If that assumption is
> wrong, then we should perhaps clearly state upfront (on the WE home page)
> what we expect our target audience to be capable of. We should certainly
> have internal agreement on it. This may be worth some debate, if it is not
> already entirely obvious.
more about it.
> Jan
>
> --
>
> Jan Visser, Ph.D.
>
> President & Sr. Researcher, Learning Development Institute
>
> E-mail: jvi...@learndev.org
>
> Check out: http://www.learndev.org and http://www.facebook.com/learndev
>
> Blog: http://jvisser-ldi.blogspot.com/
Jan Visser
Thanks Ed.
I entirely agree with your view that what is going to be offered on WE should help learners acquire the ability to make appropriate judgments about the validity of what they read, listen to or view. I value the work you are doing to make it happen. You are right also that this should be “a fundamental part of education” in general. An important part of making the judgment is also the ability to recognize that you are not yet ready to make the judgment. In other words, you should be able to hold yourself from jumping to a conclusion, one way or the other, when you are not yet ready.
When I said “I am assuming that the WE audience has insufficient prior knowledge to make the validity judgments themselves” I was simply implying that the above work must still be done. But even then I think it is a responsibility on the part of the WE community (and educators in general) not to present side-by-side the real story and some alternative option that, for reasons that have nothing to do with the available evidence, some people want to be considered as well. This is for instance the case of those who want evolution and creationism to be taught side-by-side (a phenomenon more prominent in the US than in other parts of the world). I don’t call such things ‘controversies’ but rather ‘pseudo-controversies.’ They are the kind of cases about which I heard Richard Dawkins once say: “You don’t invite a reproductive biologist to a debate with a proponent of the stork theory of child birth.”
The above is different from being exposed, as a learner, to perfectly reasonable hypotheses that have not yet been sufficiently tested. As a young adolescent learner, my geology teacher (a devoutly religious man who taught us the facts of evolution—no controversy as far as he was concerned) once lent me a copy of Wegener’s book about that author’s continental drift hypothesis (this was around 1955, before the work on paleomagnetism had started accumulating solid data in favor of the hypothesis). My teacher told me that the book explained a theory that was not yet proven, but interesting all the same. I read the book with great interest, acutely aware of my feeling about ‘how nice it would be if this were indeed true.’ It took a couple more years, until after I had meanwhile graduated from my school, before the scientific community was convinced about Wegener’s views. I owe it to this teacher to have had, as a young adolescent, the experience of getting excited about something for which there was as yet no conclusive evidence, having had to exercise the discipline of keeping myself from accepting it as a theory while considering it a beautiful hypothesis. In retrospect, I consider this a highly educational experience. I guess it requires a teacher to be part of the process of a student’s interaction with given content for such an experience to become highly educational and thus profoundly influential.
Jan
--
Jan Visser, Ph.D.
President & Sr. Researcher, Learning Development Institute
E-mail: jvi...@learndev.org
Check out: http://www.learndev.org and http://www.facebook.com/learndev
Blog: http://jvisser-ldi.blogspot.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Cherlin [mailto:eche...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:02 AM
To: wikied...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Denialism (was Re: [WikiEducator] Phil's Rants)
Excellent overview. My ony concern is where you write, "I am assuming
Edward Cherlin
was a hypothesis, along with many others since confirmed or discarded,
and the panoply of the currently undecided, including the nature of
dark matter and dark energy, and the Riemann Hypothesis. I
particularly enjoy notions that have been discarded and then revived
in a completely different form.
For example, the Olbers paradox says that in an infinite universe, we
should see a star in every direction, so that the sky should be as hot
as the surface of a star. This was abandoned with the discovery of the
expanding but finite universe, but has come back in the form of the
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
The CMBR flew free at the recombination temperature of protons and
electrons in an opaque plasma to form transparent hydrogen gas. That
recombination temperature is, not coincidentally, the surface
temperature of normal stars like the Sun (but not of giants,
supergiants, and dwarfs). At that point, a few hundred thousand years
into the expansion of the universe, the radiation was at approximately
3000 K. After further expansion by a redshift of about 1000, that
radiation is at a blackbody temperature of 2.725 K, and is extremely
uniform in every direction from everywhere.
Similarly, Michelson and Morley definitively demolished the idea of a
luminiferous ether by demonstating that no Earthly experiment could
give the velocity of Earth's motion relative to Newton's absolute
space. But it turns out that we can measure our velocity relative to
the CMBR by measuring its tiny red and blueshifts in various
directions. From the CMB data it is seen that our local group of
galaxies (the galactic cluster that includes the Solar System's Milky
Way Galaxy) appears to be moving at 627 ± 22 km/s relative to the
reference frame of the CMB (also called the CMB rest frame) in the
direction of galactic longitude l = 276 ± 3°, b = 30 ± 3°.[62] This
motion results in an anisotropy of the data (CMB appearing slightly
warmer in the direction of movement than in the opposite
direction)[63]. The standard interpretation of this temperature
variation is a simple velocity redshift and blueshift due to motion
relative to the CMB.
Periods requiring restraint have also occurred in mathematics, as when
Newton and Leibniz couldn't prove their calculus correct, a problem
that persisted for two centuries, or the shorter period of the
paradoxes in logic and set theory. We couldn't claim to have answers,
but we also couldn't just toss out useful methods. In my time at Yale,
Fred Fitch and Abraham Robinson were still working on ramifications of
those problems. Fitch created a provably consistent logic and set
theory without Excluded Middle, and Robinson extended non-standard
arithmetic with infinities to non-standard analysis with
infinitesimals. This turns out to be a much easier way to do calculus
than the conventional δ-ε method, once you get past the logical
preliminaries.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "WikiEducator" group.
> To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org
> To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator
> To post to this group, send email to wikied...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> wikieducator...@googlegroups.com
Steven Parker
Hi Nellie
You may enjoy this skit from John Stewart of the Daily Show.
Takes the mickey out of both the climategate scientists, "warmists" and "deniers" without the “polar” outlook :-)
Jan Visser
Possibly more interesting J is the analysis in an article in today’s issue of Science (4 December 2009) by Eli Kintisch on “Stolen e-mails turn up heat on climate change rhetoric” (Vol 326, p. 1329). Those seriously interested in science-and-society issues but who have no easy access to the journal, please send me a personal email (off-list) and I can send you a copy of this article for your personal use.
Jan
--
Jan Visser, Ph.D.
President & Sr. Researcher, Learning Development Institute
E-mail: jvi...@learndev.org
Check out: http://www.learndev.org and http://www.facebook.com/learndev
Blog: http://jvisser-ldi.blogspot.com/
From: Steven Parker
[mailto:spar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009
6:02 AM
To: wikied...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Denialism (was Re:
[WikiEducator] Phil's Rants)
Hi Nellie
NELLIE DEUTSCH
Thank you for sharing that, Steven.
Warm wishes,
Nellie Deutsch
Sharing is Caring!
Doctoral Student
Educational Leadership
Curriculum and Instruction
Integrating Technology for Active Life-long Learning (IT4ALL) http://www.integrating-technology.com/pd
Get ready for CO10 at WiZiQ: http://connecting-online.ning.com/
Free online workshops using WiZiQ: http://www.wikieducator.org/Workshops
Steven Parker
All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx#ixzz0aPONblVN
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 03:28, Steven Parker <spar...@gmail.com> wrote:How do you know? You ignored the very fact that I have evidence.
> Hi Edward
>
> Sorry mate no fallacy,
Not so. There are a number of cases of cooked data, where the
> no conspiracy IPCC climate scientists actually
> have been scandousily busted cooking and destroying the data on
> global warming,
malefactor was drummed out of the scientific community. This isn't one
of them.
In any case, one researcher, or a few researchers, cooking data says
nothing about the validity of the rest of the investigators in the
field. To argue otherwise is a clear evidence that you have come to a
predetermined conclusion, and you are cherry-picking data to support
it, following the lead of the anti-scientific Global Warming deniers.
My question to you is, Why do you want Global Warming to be false?
Having an open mind does not mean allowing one's brain to fall out.
> this should be welcomed by wikieducators with an open
> mind (No denial)
Maybe, but it should be about real fraud.
> for what this means fro teaching (The scientific
> process) why not give students links to this controversy, have a a
> learning activity on climate change science, denialism, crime and
> fraud, sociology, behaviorism, media, computer hacking you name it.
I told you I did that. You prefer to believe corporate shills and
> I'll not try to convince you on what this means for the global warming
> science that's up to you, read the climategate info though it sounds
> like you have it figured out as conspiracy (ok) for others Google
> "climategate" and read the news,
cranks rather than scientists on this. I can't help you, unless you
are willing to do the homework yourself, rather than relying on
politically motivated junk science.
Ball is a well-known crank on other issues who doesn't really believe
> there is a great student activity
> within.
>
> http://www.google.com.au/search?q=climategate+new+zealand&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
>
> I found this video interview with Dr Tim Ball rather interesting
> "Retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball joins us to discuss the
> significance of the recently leaked emails and documents"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac
in chemistry. It took no effort to discover this fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
"The plain fact is there was never any evidence of CFCs affecting the
ozone layer."
He is one of those I had in mind when I noted that the deniers claim
that models don't include factors that they do include, and that they
ignore all of the facts.
"Water vapor is effectively ignored in the computer models. Yes,
that's right. The climate models used as the basis for the entire
global warming argument do not include the effect of clouds."
"Since 1940 and from 1940 until 1980, even the surface record shows cooling."
Both claims are factually incorrect, and require us to believe in a
global conspiracy within all of climate science.
Ball was featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary
film produced by Martin Durkin that was first aired in March 2007. The
film showcased scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and
others who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming.
In the film, Ball was misattributed as a professor in the Department
of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg (the University of
Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology and Ball retired
more than ten years before the show aired).[11] Since then, he has
also appeared numerous times on the Glenn Beck Show, with a role in
the special, "Exposed: Climate of Fear."
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_%28television_director%29
Always critical of environmentalism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/04/comment.comment
Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/21/climatechange.carbonemissions1
Why does Channel 4 seem to be waging a war against the greens? The
Guardian, July 22, 2008
As Channel 4 is once again fiercely criticised by the TV watchdog for
distorting the views of climate scientists, George Monbiot lays bare
the channel's shameful history of misleading its viewers on global
warming
--
> Fascinating, I'm sure there is more to follow.
>
> http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/lawrence-solomon-new-zealand-s-climategate.aspx
>
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017977/climategate-the-scandal-spreads-the-plot-thickens-the-shame-deepens/
> ,
> Cheers
>
>
>
>
> On 11/28/09, Edward Cherlin <eche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This turns out not to be the case. More below.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 23:16, Steven Parker <spar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "denial of the existence of global warming, or denial of the truth of
>>> evolution? The space race is a product of movie special effects? The earth
>>> is flat? It is difficult for me to imagine my believing such. Do they
>>> deserve a hearing?"
>>>
>>> Some of these are obviousily very ridiculous but yes it is a real problem
>>> giving controversial issues a hearing, for example alot of educational
>>> resources have been created and taught to students on the existence of
>>> global warming based on the impact of human carbon emissions.
>>>
>>> From an education point alot has been politically and personally invested
>>> in
>>> this premise based on IPCC data but yet only recently as I'm sure many of
>>> you are aware there has been the "Climategate" controversy whereby the
>>> British Climatic Research Unit's computers at the University of East
>>> Anglia
>>> where hacked. From this emails and documents have been published which
>>> show
>>> IPCC endorsed scientists engaged in the the falsification and destruction
>>> of data
>>
>> Humpty Dumpty fallacy: Words mean only what I want them to mean,
>> rather than having different meanings in different contexts.
>>
>> By no means. In fact, shame on you for being fooled by industry shills
>> and True Believers in Conspiracy Theories.
>>
>> http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/26/17302/203
>>
>> DS: When Phil Jones wrote in 1999, "I've just completed Mike's Nature
>> trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years
>> (i. e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the
>> decline," what did he mean?
>>
>> Michael Mann: Phil Jones has publicly gone on record indicating that
>> he was using the term "trick" in the sense often used by people, as in
>> "bag of tricks", or "a trick to solving this problem ...", or "trick
>> of the trade". In referring to our 1998 Nature article, he was
>> pointing out simply the following: our proxy record ended in 1980
>> (when the proxy data set we were using terminates) so, it didn't
>> include the warming of the past two decades. In our Nature article we
>> therefore also showed the post-1980 instrumental data that was then
>> available through 1995, so that the reconstruction could be viewed in
>> the context of recent instrumental temperatures. The separate curves
>> for the reconstructed temperature series and for the instrumental data
>> were clearly labeled.
>>
>> and so on.
>>
>>> and vindication of "sceptical scientists" with data contrary to the
>>> global warming hypothesis.
>>
>> Cherrypicking fallacy.
>>
>> Also not the case, as discussed in the same story and many others on
>> Daily Kos and elsewhere. The scientists have taken account of daily
>> and annual warming and cooling cycles, the cooling effect of volcanic
>> aerosols and warming from volcanic CO2, variations in El Niño/La Niña,
>> and a multitude of other measured and modeled effects tending to more
>> or less warming at particular times. Carbon-industry pseudo-scientists
>> follow the techniques pioneered by tobacco industry pseudo-scientists,
>> picking out one factor or another and claiming that it invalidates the
>> analysis that actually includes it, while ignoring all of the real
>> data, and expecting the public not to check up on them.
>>
>>> i.e the science is most definitely not closed.
>>
>> Strawman fallacy.
>>
>> Science is never closed. A theory can only be closed if it is held in
>> a closed mind.
>>
>> We are still running tests on General Relativity, such as the recently
>> completed Gravity Probe B. Initial analysis suggested detection of
>> frame dragging, but a problem in tracking the rotations of the test
>> spheres has put that result under a cloud. It was not clear when I
>> last checked whether further analysis will clear up the matter. Denial
>> of global warming would be equivalent to claiming that the failure of
>> this experiment to return a valid result somehow calls General
>> Relativity into question, even though the GPS system couldn't possibly
>> work without GR time calculations for orbiting atomic clocks.
>>
>> The issues in global warming do not extend to whether it is occurring.
>> The measurements of global air and water temperature, and of melting
>> ice and permafrost, are unequivocal. The questions are how much, how
>> fast, and with what effects on sea levels, agriculture, disease,
>> extinctions, and other matters that affect human well-being.
>>
>> It is correct to say that all global warming models have been wrong.
>> This does not help the deniers, because the models have all been wrong
>> in the wrong direction. All of the major indicators show that warming
>> is worse than expected, and accelerating faster than predicted.
>>
>> Contrary to all conspiracy theories, climate models have been
>> consistently conservative. The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is
>> apparently saturated, as it has recently begun releasing about as much
>> CO2 as it absorbs. If this extends to the whole ocean, the rate of
>> accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere will roughly double from the
>> current rate. If the Arctic sea ice disappears, ocean currents may
>> change dramatically. If the permafrost melts, it may release huge
>> amounts of methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, though
>> not so long-lived in the atmosphere. I could go on.
>>
>> As with Holocaust Denial and "Creation Science", trivial objections
>> are put forward to True Believers as reasons to dispute the entire
>> story, a story actually based in each case on vast records and other
>> evidence. The Holocaust occurred at large numbers of sites, for which
>> detailed records were kept, whether or not you can find the remains of
>> the demolished gas chambers or cremation ovens at Auschwitz. Evolution
>> is a fact, not a theory. Many billions of facts, in fact. We can
>> discuss details of DNA, ribosomes, the genetic code, the RNA world,
>> the lack of a detailed roadmap of abiogenesis, but none of the
>> questions about details and unknown sequences changes our
>> understanding of mutation processes and of natural and sexual
>> selection. Nor do the fake fossils of human and dinosaur footprints
>> together. And the AIR and WATER and ICE and DIRT and ROCKS are
>> WARMING, and the oceans are getting more acid. No possible discrepancy
>> in modeling or in use of easily misunderstood jargon can change those
>> facts.
>>
>>> See:
>>> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/British_Climatic_Research_Unit%27s_emails_hacked
>>>
>>> Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails -
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac
>>>
>>> Does this deserve a hearing? Yes most definatley otherwise an education
>>> wiki
>>> becomes non objective and counter to the aims of educating people into the
>>> area of indoctrination.
>>
>> It has had a hearing, and has been extensively debunked. Do your
>> homework. Search for comments on the issue using Google, and see
>> whether you can tell the science from the pseudoscience.
>>
>>> Yes a real problem despite it being difficult to imagine.
>>
>> Cold fusion is a more interesting case. We are quite certain that
>> chemists Fleishman and Pons believed their conclusions for a long
>> time, even though physicists poked holes in every announcement, and
>> published quantum mechanical analyses showing why their result was
>> imossible. I can provide details if anybody needs them, or you can
>> look it up. The graphs of supposed gamma ray emission from their
>> experiments were physically impossible, because they showed no
>> reflected gamma rays at the appropriate energy shifts. The next set of
>> graphs showed the features required by that criticism, but failed to
>> show others. And so on. Nevertheless, scientists tried to replicate
>> their results for more than a year, without success, before giving up.
>> Scientists never do an experiment or run a model just once.
>>
>> Deniers do no experiments and build no models, but claim that any
>> single error in any scientific paper is grounds for throwing out the
>> whole idea. This is based on a misunderstanding of the term
>> "falsification" by Karl Popper in his book Conjectures and
>> Refutations. One observation does not constitute a fact, and one fact
>> does not refute an established theory. The Michelson-Morley
>> experiments conducted over more than a year conclusively demonstrated
>> that Classical Physics was incomplete for motion at a significant
>> fraction of the speed of light, but not that it was fundamentally no
>> good. Nobody abandoned physics between those experiments and
>> Einstein's Relativistic explanation. We know that quantum mechanics
>> and General Relativiy cannot both be complete, and in fact we expect
>> that both are incomplete. But we do not throw them out. They remain
>> accurate as far as they go. Someday, something new will go farther,
>> and the old theories will be seen to be approximations of the new
>> theory in the old realm, while the new theory explains much more in
>> new realms.
Edward Mokurai (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) Cherlin
Silent Thunder is my name, and Children are my nation.
The Cosmos is my dwelling place, the Truth my destination.
http://www.earthtreasury.org/
Jan Visser
Steven,
What I fail to understand is why no alternative argument to the IPCC canon is presented in the scientific literature, based on a more complete set of data than, assumedly, considered by the IPCC. This would then be subject to the scrutiny of the scientific community at large, not just the IPCC folks, and advance the science. With due respect to the blogosphere and Wikipedia, I don’t see them as media of validation. They are rather the equivalent of the debates around kitchen tables in laboratories from before the time of the Internet (though they continue to play a role also now). Such debates are surely inspiring and at times determining for the course that scientific investigations will take, but they are unlikely to serve the purpose of validation. If you want to understand this, the recently appeared ‘The age of entanglement’ by Luisa Gilder, is an interesting fictional rendering of the history of quantum physics during the twentieth century that shows this process very well.
I am quite in favor of challenging the establishment, but if you do it, you must do it well. It’s an interesting new phenomenon that the general public is now able to look over the shoulders of what scientists deliberate on in their own restricted environment. This has both positive and negative consequences. I consider the use of terms like ‘climategate’, that now appear in public discourse, unfortunate as it suggests deliberate fraud of the kind of the original ‘gate’ affair in Nixon’s time. That’s different from the battles that scientists habitually face when trying to come to grips with alternative interpretations of how nature works. Here particularly the interference of politics and corporate power are not helpful. Both politics and the corporate world are only too eager to play to the sentiments of the general public. This is dangerous as long as the general public is uneducated. Hence, there is great need for WikeEducator to do its work properly, and do so soon.
Apart from this, I think you don’t really have to be a scientist to understand that some of the recommendations that have come out of the work of the IPCC, whether properly scientifically founded or less so, are quite obvious from a common sense perspective. Erring on the safe side is to be preferred, in my view, and it may make us a happier species if we decide to live in better harmony with our planetary environment than we have increasingly forgotten to do since the start of the agricultural revolution some 10000 years ago.
Jan
--
Jan Visser, Ph.D.
President & Sr. Researcher, Learning Development Institute
E-mail: jvi...@learndev.org
Check out: http://www.learndev.org and http://www.facebook.com/learndev
Blog: http://jvisser-ldi.blogspot.com/
From:
wikied...@googlegroups.com [mailto:wikied...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Parker
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009
10:35 AM
To: wikied...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Denialism (was Re:
[WikiEducator] Phil's Rants)
Hi Edward
Steven Parker
Steven,
What I fail to understand is why no alternative argument to the IPCC canon is presented in the scientific literature, based on a more complete set of data than, assumedly, considered by the IPCC. This would then be subject to the scrutiny of the scientific community at large, not just the IPCC folks, and advance the science.
With due respect to the blogosphere and Wikipedia, I don’t see them as media of validation. They are rather the equivalent of the debates around kitchen tables in laboratories from before the time of the Internet (though they continue to play a role also now). Such debates are surely inspiring and at times determining for the course that scientific investigations will take, but they are unlikely to serve the purpose of validation.
If you want to understand this, the recently appeared ‘The age of entanglement’ by Luisa Gilder, is an interesting fictional rendering of the history of quantum physics during the twentieth century that shows this process very well.
The reason why the seven stars are no more than seven is a pretty reason.
KING LEAR
Because they are not eight?
Fool
Yes, indeed: thou wouldst make a good fool.
I am quite in favor of challenging the establishment, but if you do it, you must do it well
It’s an interesting new phenomenon that the general public is now able to look over the shoulders of what scientists deliberate on in their own restricted environment. This has both positive and negative consequences.
I consider the use of terms like ‘climategate’, that now appear in public discourse, unfortunate as it suggests deliberate fraud of the kind of the original ‘gate’ affair in Nixon’s time. That’s different from the battles that scientists habitually face when trying to come to grips with alternative interpretations of how nature works. Here particularly the interference of politics and corporate power are not helpful.
Both politics and the corporate world are only too eager to play to the sentiments of the general public. This is dangerous as long as the general public is uneducated. Hence, there is great need for WikeEducator to do its work properly, and do so soon.
Apart from this, I think you don’t really have to be a scientist to understand that some of the recommendations that have come out of the work of the IPCC, whether properly scientifically founded or less so, are quite obvious from a common sense perspective. Erring on the safe side is to be preferred, in my view, and it may make us a happier species if we decide to live in better harmony with our planetary environment than we have increasingly forgotten to do since the start of the agricultural revolution some 10000 years ago.
Jan Visser
Thanks, Steven, for those comments.
We seem to agree on most counts. I’m not a climate scientist myself, but rather just a theoretical physicist (who is not averse of experimentation, I must add) and who has been working on sub-atomic as well as molecular structure, particularly to understand biological organization at a molecular level) until making the jump to the hugely more complex systems we learning human beings are, especially when we try to learn in collaboration with each other, learning in community.
The problem with the climate debate, as I see it, is that science has difficulty functioning properly when too heavily interfered with by forces that do themselves not adhere to the values by which science works. Those values are beautifully brought out in the work of Bronowski, whom you quote. Because of the pressure of politics and the economy (or, should I say, prevailing ideas about what the economy must look like?) panels like IPCC have difficulty doing a proper job. It is no surprise to me to see the kind of emails that were revealed. Scientists, like most human beings, make inappropriate remarks all the time, inappropriate when judged out of context. The lesson is that one must be careful with emails. They can be hacked. However, they are normally meant not to be overheard. Rather, they may serve the purpose of getting rid of one’s momentary frustrations in playful intercourse with friendly colleagues. Overall, as a community, I am still convinced that fundamental values will remain adhered to by individual scientists, however strongly they may wish, for a moment, that the world would look as they seem to start perceiving it.
No doubt, the history of science is replete with examples of conservatism, leading to marginalization of deviant ideas. Louisa Gilder’s book that I mentioned in my previous post, paints a beautiful picture of the tension between deviant thought and mainstream thinking, placing that tension also within the context of the psychology of those involved. However, the same book also shows how eventually, and it may take as much as a hundred years, things turn around. Scientists coming to different conclusions, extraordinary ones, totally unexpected ones, don’t lose their jobs (assuming that they worked according to the shared values of the trade). They may lose their jobs, though, when those ideas or findings contradict political or corporate powers. A few centuries back they were even at risk of losing their lives. So, there is progress.
The fact that there are scientists who are working on alternative interpretations that challenge the IPCC consensus has been known for quite sometime. This is simply something very healthy for science, whatever the object of research. It has become a problem only more recently when it became fodder for the media and segments of the general public that prefer to be the non-thinking supporters of either of the two sides of what should probably be a spectrum of possibilities.
You say:
“Correspondingly the most interesting aspect demonstrated in the Climate change debate is the absolute scientific certainty and urgency postulated by the IPCC scientists and politicians of dangerous anthropenctric global warming. This is under immense scrutiny during the Copenhagen event for example he IPCC methodical dismissal of any contrary evidence demomstrated in the University of East Anglia emails.”
I don’t think you can call the East Anglia emails “contrary evidence.” They are just emails. That’s all. They shows what’s getting on in the guts of that machine, not what it actually produces. Besides, IPCC is not pure science, even if the panel tries to base its recommendations on the best of what science can produce. Copenhagen is clearly a mixture of science and politics. When Al Gore shoots himself in the foot in Copenhagen he is being corrected by science. In the process he scores negative points for his advocacy.
My whole point is that we deserve a better, and particularly healthier, debate than Copenhagen. Building the scientific mind among people who will not spend their lives as professional scientists is part of what is needed to make the debate healthier. It’s not necessarily done by teaching science, certainly not by teaching science alone. In addition, creating scientists and a scientific enterprise that interact more wholesomely with the larger world is another big challenge. It’s a long process, and not the only one we must engage in.
Ours is a fragile dominion. As a species we are in need of a radically different conceptualization of ourselves as consciously learning organisms. WikiEducator may play a role in it.
Steven Parker
kirby urner
> Since climategate it's been very interesting the revelations on the IPPC
> shonky climate data.
>
> To wrap up my contribution to this 'Denialism' thread this article
> discussion relates to the impacts on scientific 'education'.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html -
> Credibility of science in question.
>
> "Beneath this dispute is a relatively new, very postmodern environmental
> idea known as "the precautionary principle." As defined by one official
> version: "When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or
> human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and
> effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." The
> global-warming establishment says we know "enough" to impose new rules on
> the world's use of carbon fuels. The dissenters say this demotes science's
> traditional standards of evidence."
>
The dissenters appear to be skipping the part that says "not fully established
scientifically". In other words, it might just be a hunch, a gut feeling, an
intuition, and yet still, we're supposed to go with this or that policy on that
basis. Admittedly "not fully established" is one of those spectra: how
stringent these criteria?
I can see where people would feel queasy about going on hunches, and
wouldn't it be really nice if science could hand over a working climate
model that we all agreed was on target. What a relief that would be.
Thanks to chaos mathematics, any determinate model expecting to plot
out the next thousand years is probably doomed by the very mathematical
principles that sustain its nearer term relevance?
The fact is though, we didn't get to our present position by a process
of waiting patiently for scientific consensus to occur. People have been
charging pell-mell into quagmire situations, against their own interests,
since way before science, but also since science became more important.
They've also made some good decisions, saved lives, avoided disasters.
Was the decision to build the interstate freeway system based on
exhaustive environmental impact statements? Was the Manhattan Project?
Who really sat down and proved the World Wide Web would be a good
idea, before simply introducing it as a new protocol? That genii got out
of the bottle based on what databased research? We know the particle
physicists at CERN were struggling to keep up within their own field.
So today we have web browsers. That's cause and effect for ya.
Science perhaps adds some brakes, signals caution, but I haven't
noticed its ability to call a halt. Nor is it really in a position to do so, as
just sitting passively doing nothing, with no science forthcoming, is not
really smart behavior either.
The situation is easier to grok if you individualize it. You're in a dark forest,
at a fork in the road. Do you go left or go right? No science seems ready
to provide certainty, and yet camping out at the fork is hardly the best
answer. You still need to choose. That's life in the big city.
Now, to model advocates vs. dissenters, regarding some policy, lets
just say our person at the crossroads is conflicted, sees advantages
and disadvantages. Is going back an option? Hemming and hawing.
That's how it is sometimes. Lets not blame science, but then lets not blame
those who have no choice but to choose. Maybe lets drop blame itself
as a constructive posture, even of just for 10 minutes a day (a worthy
practice) -- just talking to myself here, for when I read this later.
Kirby
Edward Cherlin
defined by Wikipedia from its beginning. Science gets quoted as
authoritative, cranks only as cranks. This allegation of bias is as
biased as anything the climate cranks, AIDS deniers, or flat Earthers
have ever put out.
If you want to dispute climate science, you have to do your own
science, which the deniers have never done. Claiming that you have
poked holes in the science, so your job is done, doesn't fly. It is a
willful misreading of Karl Popper on falsification, and has been
extensively refuted by Thomas Kuhn.
Now it is a fact that all of the climate model predictions have been
wrong. The reality turns out to be much worse.
Edward Cherlin
no IPCC "canon" because there is never a "canon" in science, only in
religion. The scientific literature _has_ considered all available
alternatives, such as solar forcing and volcanoes, and discarded those
that failed to match facts, or integrated the valid contributions into
the models at the appropriate levels.
CO2 is measurably increasing.
The world is measurably warmer.
The oceans are measurably more acid.
Those are facts. The measurements have been done worldwide and
repeated for decades. Only those who accept the facts as factual get
to argue about why.
"How many escape pods are there?"
"None."
"Did you count them?!"
"Twice."
Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
The reality is _worse_ than predicted by the models. The models are
being corrected. The climate deniers are preaching nonsense, most of
them for venal gain in the carbon fuels industry and their paid
"scientists" and politicians. Republicans deny Global Warming, but
Republicans are currently lying about _everything_ in aid of their
racist Southern Strategy, which grows more shrill as its base shrinks.
The end is due in ten to fifteen years. I can point you to the payoffs
and the demographic statistics.