ext_370466 ([identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2013-09-07 06:55 pm
Entry tags:

An open letter from a dinosaur

Dear Progressives,

Turn-about being fair play, I figured that I'd write a mirrior of Bean's post But where to start?


A couple months back Johnathan Korman wrote an excellent post on the poles of american politics. In it was the following line ...the correct social order is natural but not effortless — without devotion to the correct social order, conservatives believe we devolve into barbarism.

Do you genuinely believe that if you'd been transported back to fifteenth-century London as a baby, you'd realize all on your own that witch-burning was wrong, slavery was wrong, that every sentient being ought to be in your circle of concern? If so I'd like to know why,because as far as I can tell Homo Sapiens today are no more mentally capable than the Homo Sapiens of 500 years ago. I assert that our current high quality of life has more to do with culture and technology than it does with any inherent superiority to those who came before us. The fact of the matter is that we live in a civil society where, for the most part, people raise their kids to obey the law, pay their taxes, and generally not kill each-other without a damn good reason. It is this state of civility that conservatives seek to conserve.

The majority of these conservation efforts focus on individual and family responsibilities/virtue. They operate on the theory that if you want innovation you need to reward innovation. If you want virtue reward virtue. If you want stable kids reward stable families, because barbarity is never more than a generation or two away. If you want good social order we must reward virtue and punish vice.

It is in this space that intent runs head-long into perceived intent, and I start to turn into my grandad...

Using anfalicious' recent example, I am simply flabbergasted that a "post-gendered society" is even a topic of discussion outside of science fiction. Feminism has moved from arguing that women should be treated equal and have the same rights as men, etc... To that that men and women should be interchangeable. I am expected ignore the fact that the burden of reproduction is carried disproportionately by the female of the species. I am expected to ignore the differences in biology. To ignore the different strengths and weaknesses of both and how they compliment each other. I am expected to be genderless. I am not therefore I am a misogynist.

Global warming is based on computer models that keep failing. Catastrophic predictions are constantly proven wrong and (surprise, surprise) the only solution ever proposed is higher taxes and greater regulatory powers. I suspect that a dog is being wagged therefore I am a "denier".

I don't want to live in a world of "Honor Killings" and medieval torture and I refuse to coddle or kow-tow to those that do therefore I am a Islamiphobe.

I oppose gun control therefore I want children to die.

I support voter ID laws therefore I am a Racist.

Fascist.

Terrorist.

Killer.

I could go on...

These are labels that have been applied to me by my so-called intellectual and moral "betters" in an effort to shut me up.

I am a dinosaur. Hear me roar.

[identity profile] rimpala.livejournal.com 2013-09-09 01:46 am (UTC)(link)
1984 isn't a problem anymore, the Macintosh has been out for a while now.

[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com 2013-09-09 02:33 am (UTC)(link)
Me, I think. The earlier link given was a statement given by Judith Curry in testimony to a House subcommittee (she's a darling of climate change deniers). The variance in some of the model predictions were due to ENSO (El Nino), which is starting to factor in modeling already. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html) Curry's reading of the latest work is pretty laughable (and heavily cherry-picked.) It's coma inducing to read "the set-up" (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/el-nino-and-the-non-spherical-cow/#comments), but basically---



Some people have not just misunderstood this new research, they seem to have bent over backwards to misunderstand. Probably the most nonsensical example comes from Judith Curry. She looked at the POGA-C results (in which ENSO was constrained by historical data but climate forcing was held fixed):

Image (http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/pogac.jpeg)

Her first mistake — quite an embarrassing one really — was to assume that this was the influence of ENSO on global temperature history. This quite misses the point, that one of the strengths of the new approach is that it allows climate forcing and ENSO to interact in a nonlinear manner. The actual estimate of the influence of ENSO, according to the new research, is shown in the graph labelled “POGA-H minus HIST.”

But her bigger mistake, which is so embarrassing that, in my opinion, she should actually admit how wrong she was and apologize, is cherry-picking the lowest value of the POGA-C average and its 2nd-highest value and calling that the influence of ENSO. Yes, folks, as hard as it may be to believe, Judith Curry actually took this as the estimated influence of ENSO on recent global temperature:

Image (http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/curry.jpeg)

On that basis, she estimate the ENSO influence to be 0.4 degr.C, and the net global warming to be 0.68 deg.C, then declared that natural variation was responsible for more than half of recent global warming.

As the graph labelled “POGA-H minus HIST” shows, the influence of natural variation, at least that part of it from ENSO, has been cooling, not warming, and if we want to assign a percentage we should say that natural variation has been responsible for about negative 25% of global warming. Not only did Judith Curry execute one of the most blatant, most obvious, and most ludicrous examples of cherry-picking, she couldn’t even get the sign of the influence right.





Of course surface land temperatures records aren't the only things scientists have been using for their work on climate change. It also includes many other factors (e.g. water temperature, measurements of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (i. e. upward radiation), sea levels, ice, etc.)

And the original premise (the models got it wrong) is well, not true.
(http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/27/climate-change-models-predict-remarkably-accurate-results/)
Edited 2013-09-09 02:59 (UTC)

[identity profile] rimpala.livejournal.com 2013-09-09 04:26 am (UTC)(link)
I still have no idea what this has to do with Orwellian novels we had to slog through in highschool.

[identity profile] peristaltor.livejournal.com 2013-09-09 07:37 pm (UTC)(link)
I read every one of Orwell's novels and loved them. "Slog." Sheesh.

[identity profile] peristaltor.livejournal.com 2013-09-09 08:08 pm (UTC)(link)
My fave was a toss-up between Coming Up For Air and Keep the Aspidestra Flying!. I would throw in A Clergyman's Daughter, but the homeless scene of keeping warm on a park bench seemed overly long to my high school eyes. Orwell never had a protagonist find a happy ending.

[identity profile] rimpala.livejournal.com 2013-09-10 07:38 am (UTC)(link)
Hey, it at least seemed like it at times when it was required reading.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2013-09-10 07:52 pm (UTC)(link)
Citing a satire written by a socialist to argue in favor of capitalism is the leading cause of divinely-mandated Kitten Massacres.