Many valid points....and a fair few generalizations and extrapolations that are not substantiated. Starting with the standfirst - likely problem is a Venn diagram of several sub-problems, of which the claim in the standfirst is only one piece. Using that claim as a catch-all to dismiss misinformation as a prospective problem (just because we lack a clear definition today, does not mean we cannot come up with one) and research into it as 'veneer for political propagranda' seems like click-bait at best, and a deliberate straw-man at worst.
I have been skeptical about "consensus" positions on just about everything because of an experience in high school in a little prairie town in Oklahoma. At a summer science camp, I had read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and found it convincing. One day in school that fall, someone asked me if I believed in evolution. I absent-mindedly replied that I did and cited Darwin as a source. To my astonishment, word spread around school at the speed of sound. A consensus developed that I was an atheistic pagan who did not believe in the Bible and its story of creation. I found myself ostracized, anathemized, cast out of the in crowd, shunned by all the pretty girls and cool guys. The lonely lesson I learned was that the "consensus" opinion may be dead wrong. It is also a very uncomfortable opinion to oppose.
Roger - ICYMI, I ran across this piece by Edward Calabrese of UMass - very much on-topic, and seems to be right in your wheelhouse. Looks like the history of cancer risk assessment by governments has several unfortunate features in common with that of climate risk assessment. Important if true.
"The No. 1 cause for the rise in disasters? Climate change, Pew researchers warned."
I sent an email to him and the editor a few months ago (after reading his article on COP28 / climate policy) and suggested he have a long form interview with Roger....or perhaps a long form interview with Alex Epstein given he (the author) is decidedly ant-fossil fuel.
He actually replied fairly quickly that Epstein (and Michael Schellenberger) is supported by the fossil fuel industry. OK...perhaps he is. Does that mean you're afraid to have a long form interview with him?
I told him Roger was my go to for climate data and policy. Crickets on Roger and any possibility of a long form interview.
Shellenberger is supported by FF? Since when? He’s a huge advocate of nuclear, gas interests are some of the biggest money opposing nuclear because they need intermittent renewables to increase demand for gas.
Lovely base load nuclear is the biggest enemy of gas, and renewables.
Great point. In my exchange with him, he said "he knows" that Schellenberger (and Epstein) are supported by FF and suggested I read the book "The Triumph of Doubt" as Schellenberger and Epstein operate in this ecosystem.
It's beyond frustrating. I relayed to him and the editor that I had read the Chronicle since I was a kid in the 80's and am now on the verge of canceling my subscription due to the one-sided catastrophic fear mongering, lack of opposing viewpoints, and that Substack was now my go to for objective journalism. I'm still hanging on mainly for the Sports section.
The Chronicle also gives deity status to Dr. Peter Hotez on all things COVID-19, but that's another conversation altogether. Matt Orfalea's parody of Hotez on YouTube (referred by Matt Taibbi) is legit funny as well as concerning.
Obviously, Piltdown Mann is or wants to be King Mustache.
If his views were correct he would have no need to try and silence others.
I think right now they have a pretty good thought pile happening around “climate emergency” but they know it’s built on sand so they really need to shut everyone up before the whole thing collapses.
Even though they continue to try and tell me what to think I will continue to endeavor to understand how to think.
The greatest crime in the misinformation universe.
Of course the earth is round, of course climate change is real, it always will be no matter what we do, and define “safe” regarding vaccines as they all have potential side effects.
If we assigned the same LNT to vaccines as we do to nuclear power all vaccines would be banned.
How do readers think the introduction of machine scored "multiple choice" tests and exams replacing written answers affected logic and reasoning? Smart kids could guess the "right" answer without explaining why. Debates requiring arguing for the opposition position build understanding of your own.
The 100% failure rate on a 1982 SAT question correctly illustrates the problem. The only three students who actually worked out the correct answer and how they acted illustrates the dangers we face now. https://youtu.be/FUHkTs-Ipfg?si=0B69JrIS24bZE3LS
A frequent criticism of some climate scientists is their failure to archive data, even when required by contract, with the excuse in some cases of "proprietary" data ownership by the researcher or a defensive "why should I show it to you since you will only try to pick holes in it?"
As Richard Horton, longtime editor of "The Lancet stated", “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." largely because it can not be replicated. When there is no funding for replication and rather than prestige, you may be attacked or fired for threatening individual or institutional reputation, the whole foundation of science crumbles. Lucrative areas are especially vulnerable as James Cook University Dr. Peter Ridd found out.
"Science is not a theory or a truth, it is a method for puzzle-solving and thus
better understanding the natural world. It is fundamentally about amassing data either
through observation or experimentation that becomes evidence to either prove or
disprove hypotheses. There are many alternatives to science including myth. A myth
is a traditional story often explaining supernatural beings or events. People have a
tendency to gravitate to myth. Individuals may be able to recognise myth in organised
religion but find it very difficult to discern when it comes to environmentalism,
Perhaps there is hope with the curious and still independent under grad who exposed academic misconduct by Stanford's president and the similar termination at Harvard's for plagiarism.
I often (without intending to be egotistical) refer to my life as a "search for truth." An honest search requires humility. For any side of a political debate to claim that it owns the truth is equivalent of high disregard for opposition views and the scientific method. Yet it is more and more common for scientists and politicians to approach issues with Michael Mann's attitude - "I own the truth. Disagree, I will destroy you."
The vector for "consensus disease" was identified in 1961 by Dwight Eisenhower, possibly the last truly thoughtful U.S. President with a grounding in real life.
"... the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded." From his (1961 Farewell Address.)
Likewise, the shrivelling mass media, never overweight in science expertise to begin with, narrows targets to uniform audiences for survival, abandoning the capacity or interest in exploring or even reporting on "controversial" issues. Alan Rusbridger announcing "The Guardian" was now "a campaigning organization" no longer publishing views "outside the consensus", explicitly denied C.P. Snow's iconic 1921 editorial principle that, "The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard." Founding https://coveringclimatenow.org/ which now feeds a 2 billion audience from 500+ media outlets only uniform messages from the "approved" list. Try searching Google Images for "carbon pollution" to see the results in black and white.
Many valid points....and a fair few generalizations and extrapolations that are not substantiated. Starting with the standfirst - likely problem is a Venn diagram of several sub-problems, of which the claim in the standfirst is only one piece. Using that claim as a catch-all to dismiss misinformation as a prospective problem (just because we lack a clear definition today, does not mean we cannot come up with one) and research into it as 'veneer for political propagranda' seems like click-bait at best, and a deliberate straw-man at worst.
Misinformation is any information not supporting the "consensus" view on the alarmist political climate agenda.
Can this monster be fought? Or is it wiser to wait for it to be killed off by the approaching ice age?
Mann seems to block anyone on X who argues against his ideology. I did so once and was blocked. Hurray for me!
Mann said 'he's a sociopath, I'm only a criminal'.
Tag team climate in action.
I have been skeptical about "consensus" positions on just about everything because of an experience in high school in a little prairie town in Oklahoma. At a summer science camp, I had read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and found it convincing. One day in school that fall, someone asked me if I believed in evolution. I absent-mindedly replied that I did and cited Darwin as a source. To my astonishment, word spread around school at the speed of sound. A consensus developed that I was an atheistic pagan who did not believe in the Bible and its story of creation. I found myself ostracized, anathemized, cast out of the in crowd, shunned by all the pretty girls and cool guys. The lonely lesson I learned was that the "consensus" opinion may be dead wrong. It is also a very uncomfortable opinion to oppose.
Roger - ICYMI, I ran across this piece by Edward Calabrese of UMass - very much on-topic, and seems to be right in your wheelhouse. Looks like the history of cancer risk assessment by governments has several unfortunate features in common with that of climate risk assessment. Important if true.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/15459624.2024.2311300?needAccess=true
This is a typical piece from this columnist in today's Houston Chronicle.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/hurricane-texas-climate-economy-insurance-19371487.php
Hurricanes "supercharged" by climate change.
"The No. 1 cause for the rise in disasters? Climate change, Pew researchers warned."
I sent an email to him and the editor a few months ago (after reading his article on COP28 / climate policy) and suggested he have a long form interview with Roger....or perhaps a long form interview with Alex Epstein given he (the author) is decidedly ant-fossil fuel.
He actually replied fairly quickly that Epstein (and Michael Schellenberger) is supported by the fossil fuel industry. OK...perhaps he is. Does that mean you're afraid to have a long form interview with him?
I told him Roger was my go to for climate data and policy. Crickets on Roger and any possibility of a long form interview.
Good times.
Shellenberger is supported by FF? Since when? He’s a huge advocate of nuclear, gas interests are some of the biggest money opposing nuclear because they need intermittent renewables to increase demand for gas.
Lovely base load nuclear is the biggest enemy of gas, and renewables.
Great point. In my exchange with him, he said "he knows" that Schellenberger (and Epstein) are supported by FF and suggested I read the book "The Triumph of Doubt" as Schellenberger and Epstein operate in this ecosystem.
It's beyond frustrating. I relayed to him and the editor that I had read the Chronicle since I was a kid in the 80's and am now on the verge of canceling my subscription due to the one-sided catastrophic fear mongering, lack of opposing viewpoints, and that Substack was now my go to for objective journalism. I'm still hanging on mainly for the Sports section.
The Chronicle also gives deity status to Dr. Peter Hotez on all things COVID-19, but that's another conversation altogether. Matt Orfalea's parody of Hotez on YouTube (referred by Matt Taibbi) is legit funny as well as concerning.
Shellenberger believes in AGW and while he supports gas as a transition he believes we need to get off of it hence his push for nuclear.
Pretty funny to suggest he is paid by FF interests.
Standard insults
For every website, a zampolit.
People should learn how to use their BS radar.
Many can’t or are unwilling to think
Regarding the process of SELF-censorship, this is the best thing I have ever read
https://www.thefp.com/p/an-illustrated-guide-to-self-censorship
Obviously, Piltdown Mann is or wants to be King Mustache.
If his views were correct he would have no need to try and silence others.
I think right now they have a pretty good thought pile happening around “climate emergency” but they know it’s built on sand so they really need to shut everyone up before the whole thing collapses.
Even though they continue to try and tell me what to think I will continue to endeavor to understand how to think.
The greatest crime in the misinformation universe.
Of course the earth is round, of course climate change is real, it always will be no matter what we do, and define “safe” regarding vaccines as they all have potential side effects.
If we assigned the same LNT to vaccines as we do to nuclear power all vaccines would be banned.
It’s all in the dose.
There are no solutions only tradeoffs.
At last a very good film pouring cold water on climate alarm: https://youtu.be/A24fWmNA6lM?si=FnhkV-PalwVYhxve
It appears that Michael Mann doesn’t fully agree with the IPCC models now: https://x.com/michaelemann/status/1774778954735350008?s=61 😉
How do readers think the introduction of machine scored "multiple choice" tests and exams replacing written answers affected logic and reasoning? Smart kids could guess the "right" answer without explaining why. Debates requiring arguing for the opposition position build understanding of your own.
The 100% failure rate on a 1982 SAT question correctly illustrates the problem. The only three students who actually worked out the correct answer and how they acted illustrates the dangers we face now. https://youtu.be/FUHkTs-Ipfg?si=0B69JrIS24bZE3LS
A frequent criticism of some climate scientists is their failure to archive data, even when required by contract, with the excuse in some cases of "proprietary" data ownership by the researcher or a defensive "why should I show it to you since you will only try to pick holes in it?"
As Richard Horton, longtime editor of "The Lancet stated", “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." largely because it can not be replicated. When there is no funding for replication and rather than prestige, you may be attacked or fired for threatening individual or institutional reputation, the whole foundation of science crumbles. Lucrative areas are especially vulnerable as James Cook University Dr. Peter Ridd found out.
"Science is not a theory or a truth, it is a method for puzzle-solving and thus
better understanding the natural world. It is fundamentally about amassing data either
through observation or experimentation that becomes evidence to either prove or
disprove hypotheses. There are many alternatives to science including myth. A myth
is a traditional story often explaining supernatural beings or events. People have a
tendency to gravitate to myth. Individuals may be able to recognise myth in organised
religion but find it very difficult to discern when it comes to environmentalism,
particularly if central tenets are not allowed to be challenged." https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The-Science-Behind-Peter-Ridds-Dismissal-Jennifer-Marohasy.pdf
Perhaps there is hope with the curious and still independent under grad who exposed academic misconduct by Stanford's president and the similar termination at Harvard's for plagiarism.
I often (without intending to be egotistical) refer to my life as a "search for truth." An honest search requires humility. For any side of a political debate to claim that it owns the truth is equivalent of high disregard for opposition views and the scientific method. Yet it is more and more common for scientists and politicians to approach issues with Michael Mann's attitude - "I own the truth. Disagree, I will destroy you."
The vector for "consensus disease" was identified in 1961 by Dwight Eisenhower, possibly the last truly thoughtful U.S. President with a grounding in real life.
"... the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded." From his (1961 Farewell Address.)
Likewise, the shrivelling mass media, never overweight in science expertise to begin with, narrows targets to uniform audiences for survival, abandoning the capacity or interest in exploring or even reporting on "controversial" issues. Alan Rusbridger announcing "The Guardian" was now "a campaigning organization" no longer publishing views "outside the consensus", explicitly denied C.P. Snow's iconic 1921 editorial principle that, "The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard." Founding https://coveringclimatenow.org/ which now feeds a 2 billion audience from 500+ media outlets only uniform messages from the "approved" list. Try searching Google Images for "carbon pollution" to see the results in black and white.