Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Confessions of a Warmist Propaganda Artist

... or letting it all hang out for the sake of humanity's collective future.

Prologue

After long threatening to do so, I've finally waded into the fray over at Dr. Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog.  After a year of slaying incognito Sky Dragon Slayers at WUWT and two weeks trying to be "nice" and failing at Lucia Liljegren's lukewarmist The Blackboard, I have apparently reached the fuckit bucket tipping point of my blogging career: I'm a climate propagandist towing the IPCC Consensus party line, Comrades.  Not even going to pretend to be otherwise, it's too much damn work.


What undid me was this post by a fellow name of Lawrence Ferlinghetti who goes by the online handle RiHo08 at Curry's joint:

---------------------

I have been enthusiastically following the exchange between Mike Flynn and brandonrgates, particularly, both invoking original sources like Arrhenius and Tyndall emphasizing particular passages of each source to make their points.
After this particular post, I have decided that I am definitely on the side of: undecided. I have also decided that it is better not to be a soldier in this war. I remain a gawker.

Better yet, I would like to be a general, like say General Eisenhower on the eve of the invasion of the European Continent: D-Day. He held two pieces of paper in his hand, both directed at the media and the public at large. On one piece of paper, declaring the success of the invasion and a thanks for all the sacrifice entailed. The second piece of paper, acknowledging the failure of the invasion, again acknowledging the sacrifice entailed. Further, in the face of victory, he gave credit to the soldiers who won the day; and, if there were a defeat, he accepted the blame for the failure of the invasion.

It seems to me, and brandonrgates acknowledged, that there is no new physics that would change the course of the dialogue. Each proponent, using what physics there is, to further their argument. Here I am the gawker.
The silly statement by Al Gore, our POTUS and other Governmental officials that “the science is settled” seems in part correct; i.e., there does not appear to be any new physics that can be applied to CAGW that might influence the direction of the contest: yea or nay.

It appears to me that the science armada has been launched and we await the outcome of the projections. After all, it is the outcomes, as evidenced by observations that will determine the win or loss of the climate debate. Like General Eisenhower, I hold two pieces of paper in my hand, and, I Am Waiting:

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/i-am-waiting/

It will be interesting for me to observe if those who espouse catastrophe (a rapidly warming world with all its declared cascading events) are believable, or, in the face of an adverse outcome to their cause (all natural variation), are singularly willing to acknowledge that they were wrong; i.e. the losers.
I wonder why I don’t expect to see some evangelists coming forward in a decade or two?

---------------------

By way of response ...

A Climate Consensarian's (sort of) Manifesto


After this particular post, I have decided that I am definitely on the side of: undecided.
It takes a strong will and a good rational mind to remain neutral when one feels that evidence of a thing is lacking, RiHo08. I commend you for your wilful suspension of belief. If I may offer a hint that you very likely may not need: when evidence seems to be lacking, look for logical inconsistency.

Presuming your enthusiasm in following this conversation is at least in part due to my end of it, I thank you for the compliment. I’ve had this one on the order of a hundred times online over the years, it is always a challenge to keep it fresh for me. Again, I’m somewhat gratified that at least one third party to this exchange is getting something useful out of it because, in truth, it’s a bit of a slog for me to have what I consider this pro forma and academic exchange with Mr Flynn.

One point of order: only Mr Flynn has been quoting select passages. I have simply spammed the links to papers and asserted that they support my position. Some may consider this bad form, and it’s an arguable point. My justification is that, in my eyes, Mr Flynn has already acted in bad faith by contorting my words and arguing by repeated and unsupported assertion. Thus he does not deserve a better faith effort on my part. One might even say that I’m toying with him, which is admittedly trollish; however I maintain that his is the more ill behaviour. As well, in my readings of his conversations with others, he has a well-established pattern of doing the same.
On one piece of paper [held by Ike on the eve of D-Day], declaring the success of the invasion and a thanks for all the sacrifice entailed.
I have not drafted a concession speech per se but I have drafted and previously published what it would take for me to concede my position. It goes like this:
Build a CMIP5-capable and -compatible climate model which is more skillful at GMST hindcasting than the extant ensemble, but which minimally invokes (or entirely excludes) the radiative effects of LW-active atmospheric species and you will earn my close attention. Replication of those results and widespread adoption of like models will earn my beliefs.

This being Stadium Wave territory [1], such phenomena should be emergent properties of such a model, not input parameters. I.e., no curve-fitting functions to observation whose terms cannot be related to some set of distinct physical first principles.
It will be interesting for me to observe if those who espouse catastrophe (a rapidly warming world with all its declared cascading events) are believable, or, in the face of an adverse outcome to their cause (all natural variation), are singularly willing to acknowledge that they were wrong; i.e. the losers.
The idea is, of course, to not find out empirically. I think for the most part that the “we must have observational evidence” crowd probably understand the folly of such an experimental protocol, but instead rest their case that such a scenario is implausible, or IF it turns out to be true that human ingenuity will allow adaptation with minimal disruption. My stock response to the latter is to wonder out loud why we must insult our present-day ingenuity. That observation is often a conversation-ender or simply gets glossed over, which amuses me.

I have also previously humorously observed that my opponents great-grandchildren might someday copiously reaffirm their belief that it’s all just natural variability on whatever future standing there is for blogs and the Internet whilst observing water taxis plying the ex-streets of downtown Miami — aptly renamed New Venice of course. Some zombie memes appear difficult to defeat, even with rhetorical metaphoric decapitation. Lop off one head and two more appear in its stead. It’s like fighting ISIS, or whatever it is they call themselves these days. Whatever the case, Freedom Fighters engaged in asymmetrical warfare against collective societal self-preservation can be annoyingly resilient even as their numbers dwindle and cornucopian in the creative ways by which they perpetually defy sound reason, logic and prudence.
I wonder why I don’t expect to see some evangelists coming forward in a decade or two?
I think you may have meant more evangelists. I certainly would expect more end-comethers to appear when the end is more clearly in sight. I am not yet so consistently gloomy, I believe there is still time to avoid the worst of the IPCC nightmare scenarios without undue panic and/or crash cart programs cobbled together in a last-ditch effort to control the bleeding. The IPCC is considered far too conservative by some prophets, and while I’m dubious of many of those utterances I find it difficult to rule out that my more optimistic belief is nought but forlorn hope.

I try to play more the role of an encouraging PR flack, or propagandist [2] if the euphemism doesn’t convince (which it shouldn’t). As you observe, not all the science is settled and there is yet much to learn. The basics are fairly static, and as such the policy fight is decidedly engaged by all sides via the use of continually layered posters stapled to public billboards and utility poles. Out of sheer frustration, my darker nature tends to get the best of me and I often demonize. My scribbles above are full of just that. Trench warfare is hell, especially when the front lines don’t move.

If I were you, I’d be on the lookout for the mechanized cavalry. I reckon the twenty state attorneys general pogrom counter-offensive against Exxon is but one harbinger of a much higher intensity and more mobile conflict. Who first reinvents the blitzkrieg will be interesting to see. Of course, nobody will agree on who was first so it’s somewhat of a moot point.

Your poem was poignant and appreciated. I am always glad to speak with a fellow citizen who like me loves his own people and also like me is wary of hyper-nationalistic pride of the sort which may lead to dark hubris. However, we might quibble about the role of taxes.

I should like to request your permission to copy it in full (with proper attribution) to my own blog along with the above note; I’m long past due for an article … writer’s block is a bitch.

Best regards my fellow traveller.

———————

[1] I am perhaps making this comparison unfairly, having noticed that Curry and Wyatt are at least proposing specific measurable physical phenomena which may explain the signal they’ve sussed out of the observational data. Someone will now surely bring up treemometers, etc.

[2] It’s worth pointing out here that the original sense of the word “propaganda” was not necessarily disparaging, much in the same way that mental retardation lost way to the less descriptive, but … kinder … term “developmentally challenged”. [3]

[3] I’ve no idea what congenital idiocy is called these days; I fear that “non-cognitively enhanced” or some other double plus ungood concoction is not far off the horizon. [4]

[4] My footnotes sometimes have footnotes. Call it a recursive affectation.

Epilogue

Lawrence Ferlinghetti: I Am Waiting 1956

I am waiting for my case to come up
and I am waiting
for a rebirth of wonder
and I am waiting
for someone to really discover America
and wail
and I am waiting
for the discovery
of a new symbolic western frontier
and I am waiting
for the American Eagle
to really spread its wings
and straighten up and fly right
and I am waiting
for the Age of Anxiety
to drop dead
and I am waiting
for the war to be fought
which will make the world safe
for anarchy
and I am waiting
for the final withering away
of all governments
and I am perpetually awaiting
a rebirth of wonder

I am waiting for the Second Coming
and I am waiting
for a religious revival
to sweep through the state of Arizona
and I am waiting
for the Grapes of Wrath to be stored
and I am waiting
for them to prove
that God is really American
and I am waiting
to see God on television
piped’ onto church altars
if only they can find
the right channel
to tune in on
and I am waiting
for the Last Supper to be served again
with a strange new appetizer
and I am perpetually awaiting
a rebirth of wonder

I am waiting for my number to be called
and I am waiting
for the Salvation Army to take over
and I am waiting
for the meek to be blessed
and inherit the earth
without taxes and I am waiting
for forests and animals
to reclaim the earth as theirs
and I am waiting
for a way to be devised
to destroy all nationalisms
without killing anybody
and I am waiting
for linnets and planets to fall like rain
and I am waiting for lovers and weepers
to lie down together again
in a new rebirth of wonder

I am waiting for the Great Divide to ‘be crossed
and I am anxiously waiting
for the secret of eternal life to be discovered
by an obscure general practitioner
and I am waiting
for the storms of life
to be over
and I am waiting
to set sail for happiness
and I am waiting
for a reconstructed Mayflower
to reach America
with its picture story and tv rights
sold in advance to the natives
and I am waiting
for the lost music to sound again
in the Lost Continent
in a new rebirth of wonder

I am waiting for the day
that maketh all things clear
and I am awaiting retribution
for what America did
to Tom Sawyer
and I am waiting
for the American Boy
to take off Beauty’s clothes
and get on top of her
and I am waiting
for Alice in Wonderland
to retransmit to me
her total dream of innocence
and I am waiting
for Childe Roland to come
to the final darkest tower
and I am waiting
for Aphrodite
to grow live arms
at a final disarmament conference
in a new rebirth of wonder

I am waiting
to get some intimations
of immortality
by recollecting my early childhood
and I am waiting
for the green mornings to come again
youth’s dumb green fields come back again
and I am waiting
for some strains of unpremeditated art
to shake my typewriter
and I am waiting to write
the great indelible poem
and I am waiting
for the last long careless rapture
and I am perpetually waiting
for the fleeing lovers on the Grecian Urn
to catch each other up at last
and embrace
and I am waiting
perpetually and forever
a renaissance of wonder

2 comments:

  1. That's really quite good.

    Shame about the bizarre view that:

    The silly statement by Al Gore, our POTUS and other Governmental officials that “the science is settled” seems in part correct; i.e., there does not appear to be any new physics that can be applied to CAGW that might influence the direction of the contest: yea or nay.

    If Lawrence applied the same effort to understanding the physics of climate change as he has done to creating the above poem, he would rapidly recognise just how absurd the contrarians actually are.

    Also, I would expect more linguistic awareness from a poet. You don't get to claim neutrality while using terms like 'CAGW'. And as for that final paragraph... 'espouse' catastrophe? Come on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understood that he's not politically neutral, far from it. I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt as to being undecided on the science because on principle an agnostic position is most logical when evidence is indeterminate. OTOH, like you, the evidence is strong and overwhelming, and it's all too likely that someone who does not find a compelling argument in it may not be looking hard enough. Or as is so often the case, is not truthful about what one has seen.

      I know the CAGW acronym was designed to make our side look irrationally alarmist. But I can own it thus: (C)AGW. After all, are we not truthfully worried about the C?

      If I were to quotemine Lawrence to find agreement with him, it would be this:

      ... I am waiting
      for a way to be devised
      to destroy all nationalisms
      without killing anybody


      He would have us be anarchists, I would not. Either way, it's a worthy goal. We won't obtain it simply waiting for it to happen. I find myself saying this to lukewarmers quite frequently. Go figure.

      Delete