Letter: Act now to stop global warming threat - EagleTribune.com, North Andover, MA
Posted using ShareThis
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Great analogy on climate change
My friend and Lesley classmate Celine McElvery recently presented her thesis on climate change and peak oil. This analogy of the current debate (found on pp68-69 of her thesis) is worth reading.
'Feeling a bit under the weather for a while, you visit your physician who sends you to a specialist. This specialist conducts many tests which indicate a very strong likelihood (greater than 95%) of a rare disorder with an alarmingly poor prognosis if left untreated. Naturally, you seek a second opinion, which only reaffirms the initial finding. In fact, the condition you have is so rare that while many specialists have studied it at length, none have actually treated this disorder before. However, 96 of the 100 global experts on this disorder are quite certain you do indeed suffer from it, although they aren‟t quite as sure about the prognosis. The remaining 4 are not able to reassure that you don’t have the disorder only that they think it unlikely that you do.
While the treatment is quite expensive and will require some dramatic lifestyle changes, the sooner you begin treatment, the cheaper it is and the far better your prognosis. And even if you want to hold out hope that perhaps by some miracle all of these experts are wrong, the treatment, beyond being quite expensive, has no ill side-effects – on the contrary, it will make you healthier regardless. However, should you delay treatment, it becomes exponentially more costly and the prognosis quite dim, even fatal. Additionally, just when you thought this couldn‟t get any worse, you are informed that it is genetic and that all three of your children have it as well – left untreated, their prognosis is even poorer than yours. The good news is that it isn‟t any more expensive to treat them in addition to yourself, and because of their youth, they are more readily adaptable to the necessary lifestyle changes.
Your accountant, health insurance provider, and the school nurse argue that the expense is exorbitant especially for a previously unseen, and therefore questionable, disorder.
What do you do?"
From: Re-Framing the Conversation:
Perceptions & Strategies for Communicating with Business Leaders Regarding
Climate Change & Peak Oil, Celine McElvery (2009) Thesis, Lesley University.
'Feeling a bit under the weather for a while, you visit your physician who sends you to a specialist. This specialist conducts many tests which indicate a very strong likelihood (greater than 95%) of a rare disorder with an alarmingly poor prognosis if left untreated. Naturally, you seek a second opinion, which only reaffirms the initial finding. In fact, the condition you have is so rare that while many specialists have studied it at length, none have actually treated this disorder before. However, 96 of the 100 global experts on this disorder are quite certain you do indeed suffer from it, although they aren‟t quite as sure about the prognosis. The remaining 4 are not able to reassure that you don’t have the disorder only that they think it unlikely that you do.
While the treatment is quite expensive and will require some dramatic lifestyle changes, the sooner you begin treatment, the cheaper it is and the far better your prognosis. And even if you want to hold out hope that perhaps by some miracle all of these experts are wrong, the treatment, beyond being quite expensive, has no ill side-effects – on the contrary, it will make you healthier regardless. However, should you delay treatment, it becomes exponentially more costly and the prognosis quite dim, even fatal. Additionally, just when you thought this couldn‟t get any worse, you are informed that it is genetic and that all three of your children have it as well – left untreated, their prognosis is even poorer than yours. The good news is that it isn‟t any more expensive to treat them in addition to yourself, and because of their youth, they are more readily adaptable to the necessary lifestyle changes.
Your accountant, health insurance provider, and the school nurse argue that the expense is exorbitant especially for a previously unseen, and therefore questionable, disorder.
What do you do?"
From: Re-Framing the Conversation:
Perceptions & Strategies for Communicating with Business Leaders Regarding
Climate Change & Peak Oil, Celine McElvery (2009) Thesis, Lesley University.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Michael Graham and climate change denial.
As many of you know, I've been having a running argument on climate change with WTKK radio personality Michael Graham. Michael's latest post is yet another example of climate change denial and the larger problem of blog science. I've sent a lengthy critique of the article to michaelgraham.com and hope it will be published in its entirety but I will include my comments on this post as well.
Suffice it to say that I find the challenge of the bloggosphere a daunting and discouraging one. Scientific literacy is a passion of mine and since I read Carl Sagan's "Broca's Brain" at the tender age of 12 (thank you Nana) I've tried to see the world as it is, no matter how uncomfortable that may be at times. I like to think I can navigate the choppy gulf between truth and bullshit but I am troubled by the ideologically driven anti-science commentary on the internet and cable news. It all seems so clearly biased and insufficient to me, I have trouble understanding why intelligent people are so easily deceived by nonsense? WHY? Why is it that I can so easily see through the lies and badly formed arguments but so many people are sucked in? Is the truth really that frightening that people will buy into a comforting lie, no matter how absurd it clearly is? What I am really grappling with is my future. I'm in my second semester at Lesley and my long term plan is to teach. I want to find a way to communicate clearly to students, to inoculate them from the nonsense and anti-rationalism that is so pervasive in the media. My arguments with Michael Graham and some of my co-workers who are fans of his show (and Glenn Becks) become evermore frustrating as I can see the grotesque bias in their arguments. These are the arguments of impassioned ideologues, not rational citizens, and I am at a loss on how to get through to them. If we cannot convince our fellow citizens, even the brightest of them, of the truth, what does that say about the future of our nation? If I think of an answer to that question, I'll let you know.
As for Michael Graham and his absurd posting; my comments, sent to his blog, are below.
This is hysterical. Last week I read about this so-called debunking of global warming and posted a link to it on my Facebook page with the caption "Wait for it folks; THIS will be the next big climate change denial story" and right on schedule Michael, you proved my point. Thank you. The posts supporting you also prove that people are either too scientifically illiterate to discern B/S from actual science or so frightened by the truth that they will embrace any comforting lie no matter how absurd it may be.
This is the case here with your posting. Everything you said is simply wrong. Let's look at this piece by piece. First, the George Will article is hardly an irrefutable take down, it's an absurd screed filled with distortions. A detailed discussion of the articles shortcomings can be found here: http://www.grist.org/article/memo-to-george-will-washington-post . It needs to be noted that while George Will is a respected political commentator, he has a notorious reputation for inaccuracy (and at times outright dishonesty) on climate change (http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=George_Will).
The remainder of your post is just another example of your flawed approach to climate science; specifically, that you just don't know the difference between actual peer-reviewed hard science and "blog science" that follows no standards and isn't subject to any rigorous peer review. Let's pause for a moment and consider what people are saying about the so-called controversy surrounding the Yamal dendro-chronology. Do you really believe that global warming theory is based on the rings of 12 trees? Could it really be that the mountain of peer-reviewed research accumulated over decades is all wrong because of a mathematical error or worse, intentional malfeasance? The specific details of where theses claims are flawed is found here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
The claims that the Yamal studies (there are actually several) are flawed all flow from the work of Steve MacIntyre who claims to be a climate scientist though he's never been published. MacIntyre's claims have been picked up in the bloggosphere and embellished upon but his work in this case has been posted on his blog NOT in a peer reviewed scientific journal, where it should be if it to be taken seriously. Accusations that the researchers in the Yamal studies intentionally "cooked the books" are baseless and unsupported. It may be the norm to attack someone’s reputation in the blog media but to claim that a scientist knowingly committed such misconduct without a shred of evidence is a serious matter. The realclimate posting above gives a clearly written rebuttal to MacIntyre's claims and this response from one of the Yamal researchers strongly denies any wrongdoing and points out a number of factual errors: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/ . Anyone claiming to be a serious researcher (as MacIntyre claims to be) who has discovered a flaw in the methodology of a published study should make their case in scientific journals where their claims can be subjected to the same rigorous peer-review. Scientists disagree and argue all the time, that’s part of the process. What’s not part of the process is to make unsupported claims and engage in sloppy research, as MacIntyre appears to do in this case.
What’s most interesting is to weigh the actual impact of the Yamal research on paleo-climate reconstructions. If you look at the graphs here (posted on wikipedia but linked to source material and easily verified) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png and discussed in detail here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/ It becomes clear that there are many different proxy data reconstructions that do not depend on the Yamal chronology. The key point is that the proxy record is fairly robust and that you can eliminate one or two reconstructions and still get the same pattern of warming and cooling.
Michael, you have a microphone in front of you, people listen to you. You have an obligation to take the time to verify the facts before posting something on your blog. Linking to opinion pieces and unscientific blogs isn't supporting your argument, it's recycling long discredited but comforting lies. Global warming is real (it hasn’t stopped, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif) man is causing it and the sooner we deal with it the better off we will all be.
Suffice it to say that I find the challenge of the bloggosphere a daunting and discouraging one. Scientific literacy is a passion of mine and since I read Carl Sagan's "Broca's Brain" at the tender age of 12 (thank you Nana) I've tried to see the world as it is, no matter how uncomfortable that may be at times. I like to think I can navigate the choppy gulf between truth and bullshit but I am troubled by the ideologically driven anti-science commentary on the internet and cable news. It all seems so clearly biased and insufficient to me, I have trouble understanding why intelligent people are so easily deceived by nonsense? WHY? Why is it that I can so easily see through the lies and badly formed arguments but so many people are sucked in? Is the truth really that frightening that people will buy into a comforting lie, no matter how absurd it clearly is? What I am really grappling with is my future. I'm in my second semester at Lesley and my long term plan is to teach. I want to find a way to communicate clearly to students, to inoculate them from the nonsense and anti-rationalism that is so pervasive in the media. My arguments with Michael Graham and some of my co-workers who are fans of his show (and Glenn Becks) become evermore frustrating as I can see the grotesque bias in their arguments. These are the arguments of impassioned ideologues, not rational citizens, and I am at a loss on how to get through to them. If we cannot convince our fellow citizens, even the brightest of them, of the truth, what does that say about the future of our nation? If I think of an answer to that question, I'll let you know.
As for Michael Graham and his absurd posting; my comments, sent to his blog, are below.
This is hysterical. Last week I read about this so-called debunking of global warming and posted a link to it on my Facebook page with the caption "Wait for it folks; THIS will be the next big climate change denial story" and right on schedule Michael, you proved my point. Thank you. The posts supporting you also prove that people are either too scientifically illiterate to discern B/S from actual science or so frightened by the truth that they will embrace any comforting lie no matter how absurd it may be.
This is the case here with your posting. Everything you said is simply wrong. Let's look at this piece by piece. First, the George Will article is hardly an irrefutable take down, it's an absurd screed filled with distortions. A detailed discussion of the articles shortcomings can be found here: http://www.grist.org/article/memo-to-george-will-washington-post . It needs to be noted that while George Will is a respected political commentator, he has a notorious reputation for inaccuracy (and at times outright dishonesty) on climate change (http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=George_Will).
The remainder of your post is just another example of your flawed approach to climate science; specifically, that you just don't know the difference between actual peer-reviewed hard science and "blog science" that follows no standards and isn't subject to any rigorous peer review. Let's pause for a moment and consider what people are saying about the so-called controversy surrounding the Yamal dendro-chronology. Do you really believe that global warming theory is based on the rings of 12 trees? Could it really be that the mountain of peer-reviewed research accumulated over decades is all wrong because of a mathematical error or worse, intentional malfeasance? The specific details of where theses claims are flawed is found here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
The claims that the Yamal studies (there are actually several) are flawed all flow from the work of Steve MacIntyre who claims to be a climate scientist though he's never been published. MacIntyre's claims have been picked up in the bloggosphere and embellished upon but his work in this case has been posted on his blog NOT in a peer reviewed scientific journal, where it should be if it to be taken seriously. Accusations that the researchers in the Yamal studies intentionally "cooked the books" are baseless and unsupported. It may be the norm to attack someone’s reputation in the blog media but to claim that a scientist knowingly committed such misconduct without a shred of evidence is a serious matter. The realclimate posting above gives a clearly written rebuttal to MacIntyre's claims and this response from one of the Yamal researchers strongly denies any wrongdoing and points out a number of factual errors: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/ . Anyone claiming to be a serious researcher (as MacIntyre claims to be) who has discovered a flaw in the methodology of a published study should make their case in scientific journals where their claims can be subjected to the same rigorous peer-review. Scientists disagree and argue all the time, that’s part of the process. What’s not part of the process is to make unsupported claims and engage in sloppy research, as MacIntyre appears to do in this case.
What’s most interesting is to weigh the actual impact of the Yamal research on paleo-climate reconstructions. If you look at the graphs here (posted on wikipedia but linked to source material and easily verified) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png and discussed in detail here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/ It becomes clear that there are many different proxy data reconstructions that do not depend on the Yamal chronology. The key point is that the proxy record is fairly robust and that you can eliminate one or two reconstructions and still get the same pattern of warming and cooling.
Michael, you have a microphone in front of you, people listen to you. You have an obligation to take the time to verify the facts before posting something on your blog. Linking to opinion pieces and unscientific blogs isn't supporting your argument, it's recycling long discredited but comforting lies. Global warming is real (it hasn’t stopped, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif) man is causing it and the sooner we deal with it the better off we will all be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
