I was under the impression that the
"David Snowball's August Commentary Is Now Available" posting had been deleted from the Discussions because it had become somewhat contentious. Another poster, Anna, has brought my attention to the fact that the post was not removed in it's entirety, but has been relocated some distance below it's former position.
That posting was both edited to remove some of the more heated comments, and "unannounced" (see David Snowball's explanation, below), causing it to be relocated further down the "Discussions" queue. Failing to spot it there, I believed it to have been deleted. I apologize for my error on this, and thank Anna for the correction.
With respect to global warming, the following is an excerpt from David Snowball's commentary of August 1:Summers are getting more oppressive, with a discouraging speed, as the planet heats. Nadja Popovich and Adam Pearce, reporters for the New York Times, wrote a sober piece entitled It’s Not Your Imagination. Summers Are Getting Hotter (07/27/2017). It contains a fascinating graphic showing the changing distribution of summer temperatures from the years of my childhood to now. While “extremely hot” days were once a rarity and “hot” ones were a minority, “hot” is now our normal state and “extremely hot” is uncomfortably common.
I’ve taken a couple steps in response, small though they are. The first was to join the Environmental Defense Fund, whose mission includes addressing climate change. Why EDF? Two reasons. It was well-rated by Charity Navigator, which assesses larger charities on the degree to which they use their resources efficiently and effectively. The fact that some rich donor was offering a 2:1 match for contributions through the end of August, helped. And EDF is reasonably compatible with my political philosophy. I’m a reasonably conservative guy who’d much rather encourage progress through conversation and cooperation with governments and corporations than engaging in histrionics and lawsuits. EDF works hard to create (but not get financial gain from) corporate partnerships, to tie their initiatives to good science and to engage groups with different political perspectives. So I’ve set up a monthly contribution for them in hopes that my son’s summers will be just a bit better for it.
The second was to make a carbon offset payment to the Carbon Fund, whose motto is “reduce what you can, offset the rest.” They’re small, but seem responsible, sensible and well-respected. My contribution, admittedly a form of wergild, will help support reforestation and methane capture projects, which at least helps offset some of the pollution that my small household produces.
And, as always, the Observer is hosted on energy-efficient servers which are (mostly) powered by renewable sources.
This is part of the same strategy that we’ve advocated all along: do not obsess about the theatrics in Washington and don’t hide in a comfortable bubble of like-minded conservatives or liberals. Take responsibility, actively support what you approve of, actively oppose what you disapprove of and respect other folks who are trying to do the same.
Comments
You noted: "A new poster took exception to it, and for reasons not made clear, it was therefore excised from the discussion board."
A post existed at the discussion board and was removed? I presume you read the post and then discovered it gone.
Being curious, I am; of course.
Thanks, OJ
Regards,
Catch
Sorry.
TampaBay, a few hundred days ago had some nasty going on here and there was an exchange; and the thread was killed. But, the circumstance for the kill was righteous. I recall reading the whole mix. I doubt few here knew the thread had existed for a short time frame.
Also need your input into this lighter side of life.
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/92347/#Comment_92347
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/34477/david-snowball-s-august-commentary-is-now-available#latest
The moderators can "announce" a post, which pins it to the top of the board. Usually I announce the new issue then, after a week, unannounce it. That means if no one has commented on it recently, it drifts down in the list, though it doesn't disappear.
We can also freeze threads, which I do only if I deem the discussion irredeemably contentious, or delete individual posts or entire threads. In the "August commentary" one, I simply deleted the grouchiest content. That had no effect on its position on the board.
My professional competence is in the analysis of public argument, and I'm a bit discouraged about the prospect that evidence simply doesn't matter. There is a core of folks for whom the claim "human activity is changing the climate" is simply an unacceptable conclusion, sometimes because they don't like the political implications (more government action might ensue) or because the well has been so poisoned (any statement from scientists or professional journalists is part of a conspiracy) that the subject is closed. Awareness and concern has grown steadily over the past five years, to the point where about 70% of Americans recognize both the existence of a scientific consensus and the role of human activity. If you track discussions on various boards, you get a sense that some folks denied the evidence because their dads did but they're moving closer to the evidence now. But there's also a group that simply will not; mostly I try to write sensibly, without panic or polemics, for the folks who are still thinking things through.
David
Take care- OJ
https://ft.com/content/ba3bb744-688a-11e7-9a66-93fb352ba1fe
Or try this if access is difficult:
https://google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=Schroders+issues+climate+change+warning&oq=Schroders+issues+climate+change+warning&gs_l=psy-ab.12..33i160k1.1027.1027.0.3423.2.1.0.0.0.0.210.210.2-1.1.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..1.1.209.0.gI9k1pcXW34
It conflates an accurate statement made about June 2016 YTD temperature data with later reports about all of 2016. Here's the YTD data evoking the quoted comment NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies that “2016 has really blown that out of the water.”
Notice that 2016 (whatever point you take) is at least 0.2 degrees above any prior figure. RealClearInvestigations itself notes that this is significant, saying that "the margin of error for such calculations is approximately 0.1 degrees."
RealClearInvestigations implies that because 2016 turned out to be only slightly higher than 2015, that one shouldn't be saying that 2016 was the hottest year ever. Okay, how about this: 2015 and 2016 were the two hottest years ever, well more than 0.1 degrees above other years?
Here's a chart of the seven hottest years (it would have been nice if the RealClearInvestigations piece had linked to the actual report containing it rather than a generic NOAA climate page). Look at the right edge - those are the year averages (the graph is of YTD figures, so it's each line's end point that represents the year's average):
Now, let's talk about how the sampling is done. Here's a really good article about how different samples are constructed, including the one the British use, HadCRUT4. It's plain English and graphs, I'd say at the high school level. If one cares about understanding how temperature figures are arrived at, I strongly recommend at least glancing through it.
This graph (from that page) shows how the various sampling sets differ. There are real differences. Nevertheless, I ask all the technical analysts, all the chartists out there, to comment on whether there are clear trend lines, or if the data (including the British data) are inconclusive.
The RealClearInvestigations quotes Judith Curry, a former Georgia Tech scientist, as saying there are “some good reasons” why [HadCRUT4] elects not to extend its coverage to the Arctic Ocean. “There is little to no data, and the extrapolation methods are dubious.”
Doesn't sound unreasonable. Each of the data sets is constructed for particular reasons. In fact, the sampling article I cited above states: "The different datasets deal [in different ways] with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task."
However, it adds that "HadCRUT4 is the only dataset to leave regions with missing data blank, rather than try to fill them in. This effectively assumes temperatures there are in line with the global average.
"This wouldn’t be a issue if the world was warming at the same rate everywhere. But data suggests the Arctic, for example, is warming more than twice as fast as the global average."
We can debate how accurate that figure is: whether the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, three times as fast, 1.5 times as fast. But I didn't see the article quote Curry saying that the Arctic isn't warming faster. And that means that whatever the British figure is, it is understating the magnitude of the warming trend.
It's fine to go questioning the details. But when you do, make sure that you take note of what's omitted as well as what's stated.
omg, what a surprise
The problem with such inversion rhetoric is it doesn't work well with legitimate science. Science is based on observable facts and on experiments that can be repeated. With the universal acceptance of the scientific method in the scientific community if the community came up with legitimate facts refuting the existing climate science and proving that either A. The change was not occurring or B. It was not caused by human activity, the community would have no choice but to accept it.
Such a scientific method is the very opposite of religious fanaticism. It adjusts with the facts. Meanwhile the fanatic refuses to accept facts no matter what they say. That is exactly the position climate science deniers take. No matter what evidence climate scientists show them they refuse to accept it, claiming it's all part of some vast scientific conspiracy. But the inversion rhetorical strategy is to say the scientists are the fanatics--straight out of Roger Ailes/Cohn's playbook.
This is why I think it is pointless to argue with Maurice on this subject. No amount of evidence will be enough for him.
RICHARD
Then be your eyes the witness of their evil.
(shows his arm)
Look how I am bewitched! Behold mine arm
Is like a blasted sapling withered up;
And this is Edward’s wife, that monstrous witch,
Consorted with that harlot, strumpet Shore,
That by their witchcraft thus have markèd me.
As far back as I can go right now, although I think maybe there's a Greek play in which this rhetorical strategy is used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_not_a_scientist
https://nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/why-republicans-keep-telling-everyone-theyre-not-scientists.html
businessinsider.com/stephen-colbert-on-im-not-a-scientist-2014-11
And by the way, I don't eat meat, not beef, chicken or pork.
slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/04/meteorologists_and_regular_people_still_aren_t_sure_humans_cause_climate.html