Messages

I'll give you that it's a warranted assumption in that I posted the video on my own channel to exclusively link here, so I know how many views it's had and when.

What usually happens is:

1: I post a video or article.
2: You don't watch or read it.
3: You denounce it anyway.
4: You denounce me for posting it.
5: Rinse and repeat.

The perceived 'Chum-and-Switch' you complain of probably happens at stage 3, when I end up debating the nonsense you think is in the link you won't look at. For example, it would be like me refusing to read the BBC article you linked to because it's the BBC and therefore must be wrong so I'll argue about that instead, straw manning, or that Mark Poynting, the article's author, is a (insert nonsensical label here) and therefore biased, unreliable and not worth reading, ad hominem, and argue about his shortcomings instead. The "chum," as you put it, is the video, the "switch" is when some people turn up to not watch it and then go off on one.

Yeah, the one-and-done (with a few hopeful seeds) sounds the best approach to me.

Open to the chemical Hell of Nu Earth, some heroic last stand. Doomed heroes, until... something starts eradicating the enemy. A blue ghost emerging from the chem clouds, twin red lights of his helmet obscuring his face. "This way." "It's him!" "Who?" Smash into credits and flashback to the build up to the Quartz Massacre. 

Or, y'know, whatever the pros come up with should be fine.

I'm sorry that you feel I'm talking down to you, but that is never my intention. I try to be as clear as I can.

It is difficult, though, to maintain my calm sometimes. For example, I wrote "The scientific discussion must be allowed to take place without prejudice," which you somehow interpreted as, "you have to follow the science but ignore the science." I have absolutely no counter-argument to your assertion because it's not even wrong, it's just nonsense. What is "the science"? Data? Interpretations of data? The scientific method? Pure consensus? Whatever's politically and/or economically convenient? And how can one follow something without following it? You are creating contradictions where none exist, accusing me of supporting agendas merely for pointing out the possibility (or, admittedly, in my view probability) of their existence.

I must also take issue with your "only people with a political agenda ... would go against whatever stance you've decided to land on today," as if my views are capricious or fluid. In some respects, of course, they are - as new contexts, perspectives, or data come to light - but I always try to approach every question from a foundation of protecting humanity, not vexing it. The best protection we have is the truth - that which is real. Science can help us discover that, I have no doubt. But science distorted by the lenses of special interests and political narratives poses nothing short of an existential danger.

That science has been distorted for commercial and political gain in the past is beyond question, as all those 50's doctors who preferred Camel cigarettes would probably now attest, or the industry scientists who said OxyContin was fine. I don't have an axe to grind with any of these people, they conformed to the thinking of their time. To think that similar manipulations are not going on today, however, is naive.

Scientists are people, just like the rest of us. Most of them just want to keep their families fed and roofs over their heads, just like the rest of us. They go along to get along and assume that all the other scientists in all the other fields are basically honest, just like the rest of us. If some biologist studying the long-term behaviour of otters over a specific period cites data relating to local warming over the same period, the otter guy assumes the climate guy's data is correct, just as the climate guy assumes the otter guy's data is correct. The otter guy might have included the climate data just to get funding, or maybe as a legitimate question, but having the two data sets present virtually guarantees correlations, especially if questionable techniques such as p-hacking are used to bolster the "consensus." And let us not forget that, as in any economic or political entity, a few ambitious people will do anything to get ahead.

So I think that your characterisation of me as someone who automatically labels my critics as being driven by a purely political agenda, as if there's some species of rabid Anti-Shark party out there, is largely nonsense. The grain of truth in your accusation is that I think many people are influenced by the political and corporate agendas, but there's no malice in that statement - we are all influenced.

We see the world in very different ways, Funt, but that doesn't mean I don't respect your position or your person.

If you include all pollutants under the heading of "emissions" then I wholeheartedly agree that they must all be brought under control. The recent tragedy in East Palestine has highlighted the problem of our civilization's dependence on chemicals and the consequences of their manufacture and transport. The chemical revolution has gone largely unsung but it has revolutionised just about everything from medicines to plastics. Think about the chemicals needed just to make all these modern glues alone, how they're created, condensed, mixed or refined. All the by-products pumped into the air, released into nature, burned or buried (or, in the case of fluoride, used to strengthen teeth...). The chemical revolution has made all our modern conveniences possible, from bleach to this "C" key on my laptop, but has been a filthy revolution all the same. To clean it up would cost trillions. Carbon's easier to focus on irrespective of its importance.

I think that saying, "there is no problem" is irresponsible and wrong. However, I don't think that saying "maybe the problem isn't what we think it is" is either irresponsible or wrong. We have to entertain the possibility that natural drivers such as the sun and oceanographic and atmospheric currents are influencing climate change and that human activity may or may not be contributing to that influence to a greater or lesser degree.

If it is irresponsible and wrong to say, "there is no problem," then I think it is equally irresponsible and wrong to say, "the problem is >THIS<." The current politically influenced scientific consensus urges all things carbon, and logic suggests heeding that consensus for the time being to be on the safe side. But we should never stop questioning whether that consensus is accurate or even real (as with the "97% of all scientists agree..." p-hacked stat).

I worry that science has, in the public perception, become a religion. The scientist always rides in to save the day with a miracle cure or an asteroid-deflecting doodad. Science has given us light and telly and computers and clean water. The scientist is the modern hero, a view to which I personally ascribe. But politicians, both public and corporate, have turned science into a god and selected scientists into high priests. Dogma has ousted data. Indeed, your very statement, "...the planet is heating up in a manner that's never happened before..." can be called into question. Which is not to say that your statement is wrong, only that it can be challenged (for example, this core assumption could be based on inaccurate modern data gathered by monitors located in urban rather then rural areas, over concrete rather than soil, leading to higher temperature readings for local rather than global reasons, amongst other arguments). This challenge should not, in a scientific context, encourage anger.

The anger comes from politics.

 

I cede to your knowledge on Bellamy, I haven't looked into him in any significant way, but I can (you may be surprised to learn) wholeheartedly agree with the statement, "The profligate demands of humankind are causing far-reaching changes to the atmosphere of planet Earth, of this there is no doubt." I'm pretty sure most of us would agree with that statement.

The political answer to this is to concentrate on man-made carbon dioxide almost exclusively, and it is at this point that your views and mine part ways. The political target is a tangible thing that can be measured, manipulated and, perhaps most importantly, monetised. Research is framed in such a way as to study the negative effects of anthropogenic climate change and not the general effects and causes of climate change. Studies into the natural drivers of climate change are less likely to receive funding or recognition than studies examining human drivers. This is dangerous because it presents a skewed view that could just as easily underplay as overplay mankind's part in the atmosphere and climate of the Earth. Scientists must be free to follow the data, and the scientific process, without having to worry about whether their results will be politically acceptable or not. (A salient example of following the scientific process against the political agenda is, as you may know, playing out right now in the Florida Fluoride Lawsuit.)

From my perspective, the political view of climate is warped to serve the agendas of profit and control. Carbon credits are used to amass fortunes and beat "third world" countries into submission, so that we can dump our crap in their landfills and con them out of all their copper and lithium. Generations of lost souls scrabbling in the mud to make wands for wizards, so that we can change channels and wax lyrical about the woes of the world in some insignificant corner of the internet, where no-one will ever see, where no-one will ever care.

But there is a problem with our whole environment, including the atmosphere. It is saturated with chemicals, some of which (popularly referred to as "forever chemicals") do not break down and do extensive mischief to biology. Carcinogenic compounds have been found in the breast milk of Inuit women thousands of miles beyond any industrial facility, brought to them by nothing but the wind. The focus on carbon dioxide masks all this real harm and encourages Apocalyptic alarmism, which is the stock-in-trade of politics, not science.

Yes, the emissions problem has to be addressed - but not at the cost of all else. The solution isn't faffing about with carbon credits and net zero and electric cars, they're all just money-making schemes. The solution is to first get a handle on the true scope and scale of the situation. (You'll note that I called it a situation there and not a problem, because I think that's important if we're going to get a balanced, scientific view.) In order to do that, science must be freed from the control of politics. Scientists like Bellamy and Curry should be engaged with on a scientific and unbiased basis rather than demonised on a political and biased basis. I can see no reason why any scientist, who in following the scientific method to the best of their ability and suggesting conclusions based on observed data, should be vilified. I see no reason why any scientist who re-examines their work and comes to different conclusions should be vilified. So then, when we get an unbiased and unpoliticised view of the overall situation, good and bad, we can get a handle on what we need to do next. By controlling the framing of the situation as a problem and offering monetised short-term solutions, politics is holding back this necessary first step on the road to humanity's salvation. All for money and power. 

I know my views on this will upset some of you, maybe even make you angry. Why, though, should this be so? Conflicting theories are no threat to science, science thrives on conflicting theories because they create crucibles from which new theories emerge, or old ones persist. As Spock once (I think) said, "the beginning of wisdom and the basis of all knowledge is the simple statement, 'I don't know.'" Amen, Spocko. This is not to say, of course, that all alarmist climate research has to be discarded or vilified - no, that is the political way. Rather, it has to be folded in with the wider research to form crucibles. The scientific discussion must be allowed to take place without prejudice even if, especially if, the political discussion cannot.

TL;DR - Scientists must be free of politics and left to do what they do best. Scientific knowledge should drive political agendas, not the other way around.

[True Detective]

The new True Detective continues to enthral. The acidic chemistry between the two leads is delicious, and Kali Reis is more than a match for Jodie Foster in full-on hard-ass mode. Chuck in the supernatural overtones and this show is pushing all the best buttons for me.

I've also just discovered Hightown, which is a classy and dense crime thriller thing with some engaging characters. Just about to start in on S01E05 but so far it's fairly compelling.

I was quite sad to learn David Bellamy also went off the deep end late in life. I was thinking about him as someone to talk about for a mini-IP school project. Went to Wiki. Swiftly changed my thinking.

It's an interesting question, "why would someone change their mind?" I can't really speak for Bellamy but Istr that he was skeptical from the start, which is why he was dropped from the media. If that's true, then he can't have changed his mind for the money. Maybe he was mad as a dinosaur and couldn't let go of an old way of thinking. Maybe he was stupid and allowed himself to be convinced by shadowy actors or frothing barmpots. Maybe he interpreted the scientific data differently. I suppose we'll never know.

In the case of Dr. Curry, we do know. She initially published a peer-reviewed scientific paper suggesting that global warming was making hurricanes both stronger and more frequent. This paper catapulted her into the spotlight, being jetted around to speak at conferences and meet with politicians in what she describes as a "rock and roll lifestyle." When other scientists criticised her paper, she decided to investigate these criticisms and found them to be justified. She corrected her study and the initially strong correlations melted away into the background statistics. It was at this point that the music stopped and Dr. Curry found herself labelled as a "climate denier" (whatever that's supposed to mean) and dropped like a hot stone.

This is, at least, the story as she tells it. It may be true, in whole or in part, or it may not.

If she is to be believed, Dr. Curry changed her mind because she followed the scientific process instead of doubling-down and sticking to "the science." There certainly seems to be little gained by choosing to become a "climate denier," which seems only to mean anyone who doesn't agree with the politics. Curry herself is in no doubt that the climate is changing, and that mankind is having a significant impact, but that the true nature of these changes and impacts is being skewed and manipulated to serve a political agenda. Dr. Curry favours the scientific process over "the science," and it is for this reason, I believe, that she is labelled 'heretic.' I don't think she just woke up one morning and decided to become a "climate denier" to advance her career. But maybe she did, who knows? Humans are strange beasts.

So, I don't know. What would make anyone change their minds over this or any other subject? Climate change itself is an incredibly complex subject and my own meagre understanding of it has evolved over the years, and the above video explains the issues far better than I could. So in my case, I guess, for me to go from "climate denier" (whatever that means) to "climate accepter" (whatever that means) would be more money than could theoretically exist, intolerable social pressure, pique, or irrefutable data confirming the validity of the political agenda.

What might change your mind, do you think?

Dr. Judith Curry (Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) giving her verbal remarks to the US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on "Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth's Climate."

Who knows? Maybe N-AI-mand's you...

...and you're just funting with us.

From the very few and limited interactions I've had with the man, he strikes me as a perfect gent.

It's probably inflation/Putin/Disease-X or something.

Never mind the stock, feel the zarjaz...

The UK is one of the nations to stop funding UNWRA, the main aid support for Gaza, because Israel claims 12 (actually closer to 4) of its 13,000 workers are members of Hamas. This is helping with the genocide. Our country's government is criminal and murderous. I will never support it. Never.