Malcolmyou make really interesting points. I wish, as you say, that at the end the educated and intelligent will prevail. Unfortunately, history gives us many examples of liars, idiots and morons in charge of making decisions for the rest of us. In a perverse twist of Darwin's natural selection, behaviors that reduce our species' fitness and survival prevail. This kind of "unnatural" selection can be seen in the weight climate change deniers have worldwide. You are right saying that these elements don't use reason, and make false "facts" as they go. We can talk for long on how today's mediamakes the problem worse. But that might be for another email. Here's what I've experienced. I find climate change deniers have a gummy bear attitude. It looks colorful and appears to have some substance, but once you chew on it, there's nothing solid. At it's core, I've found the climate change deniers are actually scared to death. Granted, I'm excluding corporations and other greedy elementswho have no problem seeing millions of people starving to death, dying of thirst, sinking in disappearing coastlines, and so on. The every day climate change denier is scared of climate change itself. Hence, he/she must deny it's existence completely. Why? because the alternativeis to accept the reality of climate change, accept our own guilt as a species, accept that the changes we have to make in order to avoid catastrophic outcomes as opposed to scenarios we can manage and adapt to, these changes are enormous, and go well beyond changing a lightbulb or recycling cans. Now, I can elaborate more about this issue, it will make for a long email,or maybe a blog post.... but I made exactly the same point at a communication forumduring the ASLO Ocean Sciences meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, only to be dismissed as things only "social scientists" will say. Funny, I'm not a social scientist(and I respect them very much), but a marine ecologist who studies animal behavior... and that includes humans. As a final point, there's a very old joke in Spain, useful in this situation. I'll see if it translates ok. A 100 year old man is interviewed on tv.The reporter asks: "what's the secret for your long life?"the man says: "I never argue with anyone"the reporter says: "come on, that can't be the reason for your long life!"the man says: "ok, that can't be the reason" Sarah Frias-Torres, Ph.D. Schmidt Ocean Institute Postdoctoral FellowOcean Research & Conservation Association (ORCA) 1420 Seaway Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida 34949 USA Tel (772) 467-1600http://www.teamorca.orghttp://independent.academia.edu/SarahFriasTorres
> Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 21:59:24 -0500 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS > Forum > To: [email protected] > > The biggest problem with the deniers is that we waste much energy and > resources trying to argue with them. > > Maybe this is simply the wrong strategy. > > Whenever someone starts spouting off nonsense, blow them off. > ridicule it for what it is, nonsense. Ignore the false logic, or > again blow it off. > Responses like,... > "people chase bigfoot too..." > "if I was making bookoo bucks off of poluting, maybe I'ld agree?" > "Can you read, or do you just spew whatever nonsense a lying > politician feeds you?" > > You might think I'm kidding. I am not. > There is a point where giving the ignorant and asinine view credence > creates more of a problem than anything. Call it what it > is...nonsense. > > We are trying to fight a battle using integrity with a group of people > who at least at some levels lack that trait almost entirely. They > would gladly let half the world perish if it made them an extra buck, > or saved them 10 cents on toothpaste. You cannot argue logic with > someone who is not debating whether the facts are facts, but rather > just trying to hide the facts. > > Do not give liars the same opportunities as the truthful. If you do, > they will win. > why? Because liars don't need proof...they make it up as they go > along, and most of those who hear will simply assume that both sides > are equally credible because otherwise they would not be engaged. > After all, who puts a weakling up against a heavyweight in a boxing > match? Or who puts a Lucidore against andre the giant? or who pits a > moron against a genius in a debate? As far as TV goes, nobody except > the News Channels!!! > > Its time that we stop getting ourselves into spitting matches with > folks who cheat, fake, and lie. IF they are dishonest, treat them so. > If they are ignorant, respond as you would to an ignorant person. If > they are just plain stupid, why waist your time?? > > eventually, if we do this, even the least interested, education, and > intelligent will pick up on what is really going on. > > :) > > Malcolm > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:17 PM, John Gerlach <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > > > > I don't want to get into the whole climate change Denier issue directly but > > I > > will add my observations in advising governmental clients on the use of the > > various types of climate models (Global, Regional, various types of > > statistically down-scaled) for their landscape level planning efforts. I > > also > > have heard an earful from friends at various California state agencies > > regarding > > their opinions. > > > > What the agencies want is clear direction on how to plan for climate change. > > Other than the obvious general tactics such as larger preserves are > > generally > > better and connectivity is generally better there is little that the models > > can > > do to provide the level of information that the agencies expect. For on the > > ground planning the resolution of the Global models is too coarse (60-100 km > > pixels) and they don't really do precipitation so you just have a > > temperature > > increase. The Global models also don't take into effect important features > > such > > as mountain ranges. The Regional models are also fairly coarse resolution > > (15 km > > pixels) but do incorporate surface features. One problem with regional > > models > > are that they are too coarse for looking at local effects which the agencies > > want but they do pick up regional patterns. Another problem of usage is > > that the > > output of the regional models is not intelligently utilized. Generally, the > > data > > are almost always reported as the average temp or precipitation per day > > over a 3 > > month calendar period which is not biologically relevant. Even if you were > > to do > > the intelligent thing and lump the data by local seasons you still have to > > know > > enough about how the climate actually works in the region to interpret the > > data. > > Sure, most models predict more variable climate but exactly what does that > > mean > > for a wolverine in the middle Rockies for example? PRISM data are now being > > commonly used to model climate data at 800 m resolution but projecting it > > out to > > 50 years not to mention 100 gives you false precision even if the data are > > accurate and there are a some known issues with the data. Finally, you have > > to > > have baseline data to compare the model data to and that data is also > > modeled. > > > > So how does this relate to the public's perception of climate change? The > > subject of climate change is a very complex thing with lots of almost > > unintelligible (to me at least, and my training is in plant physiology and > > ecophysiology) moving parts. There is a huge amount of data coming in from > > field > > research concerning the aparent responses of organisms and ecosystems, > > there are > > a huge number of inconsistent climate models that are being misused without > > any > > semblance of protest by the scientists that created them that I have been > > able > > to detect, and finally, there is a huge cottage industry of climate change > > adaptation in which regulated entities are connected with sources of > > funding by > > middlemen. > > > > If I get confused and overloaded by all of this what can reasonably be > > expected > > of a lay public? Ultimately this should not be framed as believers and > > deniers > > as science is not a belief system - yes there is a huge field of the > > philosophy > > of science which shows that this is not exactly the case but that is another > > huge and complex subject. Given my personal confusion and information > > overload, > > I resort to what I hope are accurate basics. We are doing things to the > > planet > > that are altering its heat balance rapidly and irreversibly for 500 years > > or so > > at the minimum. We appear to be observing a number of phenomena ranging from > > organisms to climate that support the altered climate hypothesis. > > > > The problem is that I have to "believe" in the competence and credibility > > of the > > scientists and their interpretation of the data and that is where I feel > > uneasy. > > Given what I perceive in my role as a non-academic and non-research > > scientist > > who tries to understand and use the data, there is a significant lack of > > open > > peer evaluation of the data and that gives me pause as does the the > > scientist > > who won't speak up when his data and conclusions are over-interpreted by > > users. > > > > By focusing on the "Deniers" you may be winning a battle but losing the war. > > > > Best, > > > > John Gerlach > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: "Corbin, Jeffrey D." <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Sun, July 1, 2012 5:01:00 PM > > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS > > Forum > > > > Hello Ecolog - In March, one of the leading anti-minds of the Climate > > Deniers > > movement, Christopher Monckton, visited Union College. EOS, AGU's Newspaper, > > just published a Forum article describing our experience and that at our > > neighbor RPI. Subscription is required - http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos/ - but > > I've > > pasted the first two paragraphs below. Anyone interested can email me > > directly > > and I'll forward the pdf. > > > > -Jeff Corbin > > Union College > > > > "In spite of the fact that 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively > > publishing in the field accept the basic tenets of the Intergovernmental > > Panel > > on Climate Change's (IPCC) findings (Anderegg et al. 2010), there is a > > consistent undercurrent of climate skepticism among the general public > > (Leiserowitz et al., 2011). To some extent, this skepticism is fueled by > > high > > profile speakers who offer "the real view" of climate science. Our campuses > > recently hosted two such speakers: Dr. Ivan Giaever at Rensselaer > > Polytechnic > > Institute and Christopher Monckton (also known as Lord Monckton) at Union > > College. (Mr. Monckton's presentation can be seen at > > http://union.campusreform.org/group/blog/live-webinar-lord-monckton-at-union-college.) > > > > > > While the intention of such speakers is often to muddy the waters with > > respect > > to climate science (McCright and Dunlap, 2010), the effect at our campuses > > was > > to galvanize our students and colleagues to highlight the widely accepted > > facts > > of climate change and the nature of expert scientific consensus on this > > topic. > > This communication was achieved using social media and follow-up events that > > raised the profile of climate change discussions. These events proved to be > > so > > successful that we offer our experiences so that others can capitalize on > > similar visits by climate skeptics by converting them into "teachable > > moments."" > > > > *************************** > > Jeffrey D. Corbin > > Department of Biological Sciences > > Union College > > Schenectady, NY 12308 > > (518) 388-6097 > > *************************** > > > > -- > Malcolm L. McCallum > Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry > School of Biological Sciences > University of Missouri at Kansas City > > Managing Editor, > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > Allan Nation > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > and pollution. > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > MAY help restore populations. > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > Wealth w/o work > Pleasure w/o conscience > Knowledge w/o character > Commerce w/o morality > Science w/o humanity > Worship w/o sacrifice > Politics w/o principle > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy all copies of the original message.
