Friday
Mar112011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Crushing of dissent
Mar 11, 2011 Climate: other Education A high school student in Australia is struggling to keep quiet during climate change lessons...
For the third lesson the PowerPoint was brought out again with even more questionable statements claiming that putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is causing: an increase in temperature by one degree; a rise in sea levels; more bush fires; more droughts; more animals to become extinct; malaria to become more widespread (so much so that it would spread to the Northern Territory); the Arctic Ocean to be ice-free by 2050; the extinction of the polar bear; and, my personal favourite, “China and Indonesia will be too hot to grow rice.”
H/T Deadman
Reader Comments (130)
You do know who Trenberth is, don't you? In hindsight, I'm beginning to wonder just how deep your ignorance actually runs.
BBD,
It is quite evident that your first response to me would be taken in context of the discussion at hand. Don't pretend otherwise.
"overwhelming peer-reviewed science"
Trash.
Learn something BBD and Shub:
Naomi Oreskes: Scientists Who Lie
19 Mar 2011, 11:00
"Ever since climate scientists first began examining the evidence that our planet was heating up and that human activities were probably to blame, contrarian experts have appeared on the media circuit to spruik an alternative case. They question the data, attack the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who collect and explain it and create confusion when clarity is needed.
"Naomi Oreskes outlines the history of a deliberate and well-funded campaign to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge of not just climate change, but also the link between smoking and tobacco, coal smoke and acid rain. Over the last four decades, these 'scientists who lie' have skewed the public understanding of some of the most critical environmental issues of our era. So why do they do it?"
Continued at:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/03/19/3166818.htm
Your link mongering and copy-paste spamming is probably suited at JD's blog. What happened? Did the merciless mocking get to you?
You'd have to present *your* understanding here, not just the copy-pasted gunk.
Everyone knows what Naomi Oreskes is likely to say.
bjedwards
You have now had ample opportunity to demonstrate some knowledge of the core climate debate. You have not done so. Your manners remain atrocious.
My comments stand.
bjedwards
You probably regard most of us here as beyond redemption but Alfred is a 14 year old and is still forming his opinions. Do you really think you are going to get him to change his mind by screaming at him? Try persuading him with some scientific arguments. You could start by demonstrating that his teacher is correct in claiming that sea levels are going to rise by 20 feet or more.
Dreadnought,
Read more carefully. I am not screaming at Alfred. I am taking those to task who encourage him to repeat political propaganda denying climate science and to disrupt his class in doing so.
BBD,
The subject matter in this thread is not climate science.
bjedward
Rubbish/misdirection. Your default style of argument is not serving you well. I suspect you are not up to this sort of thing.
bjedwards
Let me be more precise. Your shouty polemic is no different in substance from the hard-line scepticism of some here. Two extremes of dogmatism.
Tellingly, you misrepresent scientific consensus as scientific certainty, when a nuanced understanding is that such 'consensus' is in fact a political construct masking and minimising uncertainty.
On top of this you pretend to an understanding of the scientific issues which you clearly do not possess. I have no hesitation in asserting that you have not read a single scientific paper in your life. This is evident from your insubstantial and evasive discourse.
Nonetheless, you feel entitled to emote and sneer at others without listening carefully to what they have to say.
Force yourself to remain open-minded. Do some hard work; read widely and think carefully. Earn yourself the right to have a position of your own. Otherwise, you remain a parrot, preening on a perch someone else built.
This will be my final comment on this thread.
bje
Litera scripta manet. From Alfred's blog:
"bjedwards said...
I see you haven't presented a stitch of evidence for your account of your class.
No matter. You account demonstrates that you are clueless about the science of climate change and, more importantly, about the scientific method.
You're readily transparent, a kid proudly displaying the arrogance of ignorance for all to see.
Take some science and critical thinking courses. And pay attention."
You had the oppportunity to argue the science with Alfred but instead you implied that he was lying about the lesson and you called him clueless, arrogant and ignorant. I call that shouting.
And that is my last word on the matter.
Tellingly, BBD continues his evasions and misrepresentations.
I have repeated one fact that BBD cannot refute as he well knows: the overwhelming peer-reviewed science demonstrates AGW is real. There is not a person in the world who has to be a scientist to understand the scientific method and why we understand that evolution is real, the earth is round, and the earth orbits the Sun.
It is for the same reason that the burden of proof changed during the last three decades from those who whose work increasingly supported AGW to those who doubt it. The science now demonstrates AGW is real and has consequences. The comprehensive review of the science demonstrates that.
There is no rational reason to be against the science wherever it leads. None. Zero. Nada. But there are lots of people for whom the science of climate change is politically and philosophically inconvenient and that is why there are those who try to attack the validity of the science but, in reality, are unable to do that. Any rational person, a scientist or not, can understand that.
So BBD's strawman doesn't really fool us. He is capable of understanding what has been repeatedly demonstrated and cannot deny that AGW is real. Unless he denies the science.
Dreadnought,
Alfred's behavior indeed demonstrated that he could care less about the science. Apparently, you really didn't read his account and missed that he believes AGW is a hoax and wanted to tell us how he laughed aloud.
Maybe you believe AGW is a hoax too, contrary to all science, so you didn't feel the need to correct something he certainly never learned in a science class.
I know I said I had finished here, but egregious misrepresentation requires rebuttal.
BBD March 17 6:42pm
bjedwards writes:
bjedwards does not read very well. Alfred suggested that AGW is a con or hoax as part of a “brainstorming session”, following other students’ ill-informed assertions that, for example, the polar bears will soon be extinct. In schools all over the world, brainstorming sessions are a standard part of teaching whereby teachers seek suggestions of, for instance, “what words come to mind when I say x”, in order to address misconceptions and provide facts. The teacher accepted all assertions (predicated on credulous acceptance of the prevailing dogma, apparently) without question, however, except for Alfred’s contribution—which she mocked. Not only was that poor pedagogical practice but, according to ethical guidelines and regulations of the Tasmanian Department of Education and the Tasmanian Teachers Registration Board, that constitutes unprofessional conduct.Alfred explains that he regularly tried to seek evidence for the Teacher’s egregious claims but that she refused to do so.
Alfred admits that he laughed aloud after a particularly stupid assertion by the teacher, and she immediately rebuked him. The teacher did not rebuke students who laughed at Alfred after she derided him.
i should like to remind bjedwards, and any other person who considers that Alfred’s account lacks academic rigour, is that he was not writing a learned paper: he was writing a personal review of a class for his review blog wherein he reviews films and games. It is surely ridiculous to expect him to supply footnotes.* Now, if I were writing a similar account I should indeed supply footnotes. I like footnotes even in works of fiction. See, for example, the novels of Thomas Love Peacock. When I reviewed The Letters of Thomas Love Peacock, I not only included footnotes, I also provided footnotes to the footnotes and then some notes to those notes.†
The hysterical claims, foul abuse and shrill accusations of denialism from such commenters as bjedwards seem unlikely to convince Alfred that the supposed consensus for AGW has scientific credibility and is not instead just another cult whose malicious but dogmatic adherents seek to hound all whom they regard as apostates or heretics. As Lucretius says: In an update to his review, Alfred explains that his teacher prevented students’ taking material out of the class. Last Wednesday the usual teacher was absent, and the substitute teacher allowed the student to keep various hand-outs. Next week, Alfred will provide more details on his blog.
* like this one.
† see here.
‡ “So potent was religion in impelling to evil”. Lucretius, DRN, I, 101.
Deadman
I liked your apposite quotation from Lucretius. Are you a fellow Epicurean? My pseudonym is an attempt at a translation of Epicurus's 'ataraxia' but I don't think I've improved on FDR's version:
http://www.posterlovers.com/artists/articles/freedom_fear.htm
My very best wishes to Alfred.
BBD wrote,
"Tellingly, you misrepresent scientific consensus as scientific certainty."
So BBD's strawman doesn't really fool us. He is capable of understanding what has been repeatedly demonstrated and cannot deny that AGW is real. Unless he denies the science.
Your evasions are really something, BBD. You are capable of reading what I DID write and NOT misrepresenting me as you did. So misrepresenting what I stated as you did with my quote of your statement above doesn't help your case.
Amazing.
Deadman,
You don't read carefully, to wit, Alfred's statement:
"For the first lesson we started out all sitting in front of the white-board brain-storming on what comes to mind when we think about climate change. After the first few people called their answers, it became apparent that they believed everything that the Greens had been saying: that the polar caps will melt, and the sea levels will rise to flood all the low-level islands; that there will never be snow again; that all the polar bears will die out; that it was all the big oil companies’ fault; that this is happening and that everyone should go “eco” and drive a Prius, except for them. My reaction thereto was that anthropogenic global warming was a hoax, another way for Greens, politicians and other greedy bastards to get even more money so that they can go get a new jet or a great big house right next to the sea."
Now sit back and carefully read what he actually wrote.
I asked Alfred for corroboration of his account of what "transpired " in class. And there is no reason we should take his claims as valid, particularly given the doubt that a "student", rather than an adult, actually wrote it. That is one reason I asked for corroboration. None has been forthcoming.
BH chose to describe this account, "Crushing of "Dissent". James Delingpole chose to write, "Alfred S: Australian schoolboy; climate hero... Alfred S, mate, we salute you!" Alfred, whether he accepts it or not, now knows that science is not politics, that he is not a "climate hero", and knows their are serious ethical issues involved in the misrepresentation of climate science by those who want and encourage Alfred to believe what he wrote above.
bjedwards:
Alfred has no obligation to prove anything any more than a film reviewer who says that he enjoyed a particular film is obliged to supply affidavits or photographs of his smiling attendance in a cinema.I’ve seen comments on websites which assert that Alfred’s post was (a) too maturely written but, at the same time, (b) too ineptly written to be real. One blogger suggests that Alfred can’t be real because no-one is named Alfred any more. Some fools have even asked for the name of the teacher—on the grounds, I suppose that anything she says denying her incompetence is bound to be true.
I gave my telephone number to one doubter, saying he should call me; instead, he proved that I am actually someone else because my IP address, apparently, is similar to a corporation which opposes the Greens in Tasmania.
Of course, no true believer is swayed by evidence; there is always a ready explanation that I am in the pay of big-oil or a concoction of a world-wide conspiracy to wreck the planet. Alfred posted his picture holding an ID card but that won’t convince anyone who does not want to be convinced.
Alfred has written that he will supply further details of his classes; that assurance is on his blog, as bjedwards, the vexatious poster would know.
Next week, once Alfred has typed the details for me, I shall describe one of the hand-outs from the class which I mentioned in my last post.
Dreadnought, well spotted; I am a Lucretian. (Lucretian rather than Epicurean because Lucretius actually wrote poetry whereas Epicurus would ban it.) You could listen to a demo version of my song, “Tetrapharmakos”.
Deadman --
Well, bj had been merely repetitiously boring, but the last one actually made me laugh. Talk about reading carefully!!
Something metaphorically apropos from your Lucretius (translation sadly, as I have no Latin):
"[...]if that centre,
That tiny part of eye, be eaten through,
Forthwith the vision fails and darkness comes,
Though in all else the unblemished ball be clear."
My regards to Alfred. I do hope that he limits his extrapolation from the distasteful experience with bj. Not all adults behave that way. Unfortunately, it seems that many (most?) of those who emphasize the "C" in CAGW, do, especially in anonymous contexts such as these. He can observe more sensible interactions at a place such as Lucia's The Blackboard.
HaroldW, one of my favourite parts of De Rerum Natura is when Lucretius foretells the coming of the Algore-effect:
(Lucretius, DRN, V. 746-47:
“At last the Hibernal Solstice brings snows and benumbing cold;
Winter returns; Chill follows her with chattering teeth.”)
I suppose it wouldn't be proper to suggest that the line be emended to "...dementibus Algore." [Algore follows her with mindless chattering.]
Not commenting per se, but this mangling of prose to conceal the fact that nothing is being said is so amusing I'd hate to think anyone had missed it:
Amazing indeed.
Alfred’s teacher today gave him some of the information sheets which she has been using in class. Much of her information, we can now see, comes from a pdf available from ClimateCrisis.net, an official site of Al Gore’s “An Incomvenient Truth”, hence such statements, presented as fact in class:
Deadman -
That's a long list of assertions, with the usual amount of vagueness and contextlessness. [Is that a word?]
It might be helpful for Alfred and his class to look in greater detail at one of the assertions, for example sea level rise. The large scary number (20 feet) is presented out of context, with, no doubt, an implication that this threat is imminent (say, within the 21st century). Note that many ice shelves would produce no sea level increase even if they completely disappear, being predominantly floating. [Science class: prove that floating ice does not increase water level when melting, cf. Archimedes.]
Look at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml , and see what the sea-level trends are in the neighbourhood. Look at the current global average sea-level rise, as documented e.g. at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.pdf or http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.pdf . [These contain satellite measurements over the last 20 years or so.] The global average rise rate is approx. 3 mm/year. Let the class extrapolate that to 2100; contrast to Gore's 20 feet. Work it the other way; figure out how many years, at 3 mm/year, it would take to reach 20 feet. Examine the chart, do you see an alarming change in trend?
Look at the longer-term history, say at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png . [Yes, it's Wikipedia, but it appears to be straight from this paper: Bruce C. Douglas (1997), "Global Sea Rise: A Redetermination", Surveys in Geophysics 18: 279-292 ] The long-term rise from 1880-1980 is about 2 mm/year. So maximum attributable to anthropogenic effects would seem to be about 1 mm/year -- and that's assuming all of the recent rise in temperatures is anthropogenic.
Put it all in context. Possibly there's an anthropogenic effect. But it's not huge, not scary. Is Antarctic/Greenland ice melting? Yes, it's part of the 3 mm/year. Is it all about to come crashing down? Well, now we're getting more speculative -- but is any acceleration of the sea level rise visible in the charts? No? Hmmm....Perhaps look at a paper which claims that there is going to be greatly accelerating melting, and note all the ifs, maybes, perhaps -- there are no proofs. Go back to An Inconvenient Truth with this new information, and contrast its presentation with the facts. I think many high schoolers will then be able to place AIT in its appropriate level of the Inferno.
Thanks, Haroldw, but there is no putting in context or challenging statements in Alfred’s class. The teacher will not allow Alfred to question her assertions; he has tried and was denigrated for his pains.
Alfred and I have created another blog, Impact of Climate Change, specifically to show documents from his class. You’ll soon see therein some of the ridiculous, alarmist claims which most of the class accepts uncritically. In the first post, I have quoted from a Homework Project which instructs students to donate to deforestACTION, a Canadian environmental organisation, in order to gain points for a “scavenger hunt”.
-nice pen Alfred - great that you are thinking for yourself and questioning the green groupthink. I'm sure some others here will have seen this but you probably haven't - as Alexander
I really like your post hope to read more from you.
Regard,
Epoyjun