Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
The Hill, via Weasel Zippers, via Fox, via Steven Goddard:
Former vice president Al Gore on Monday called for making climate change “denial” a taboo in society.
“Within the market system we have to put a price on carbon, and within the political system, we have to put a price on denial,” Gore said at the Social Good Summit New York City.
“It is simply not acceptable for major companies to mimic the unethical strategy of the tobacco companies in presenting blatantly false information in order to protect a business model,” Gore added, alleging that’s what some oil and coal companies are doing. “There needs to be a political price for denial.”
:
He urged attendees to challenge denial of climate change in conversations in families and communities and elsewhere. “We can win this conversation and winning a conversation can make all the difference,” Gore said. “Don’t let denial go unchallenged.”Gore noted how racism and later homophobia have become increasingly unacceptable.
He pointed to news accounts of an instance in which two gay men were subjected to anti-gay insults by another customer in line at an Ohio pizza spot.
The other people in line and the employees uniformly condemned the insult, according to reports.
Article goes on to provide a link to the Ohio/pizza/gay story, according to which…
Two gay men stopping for a late night slice of pizza in Columbus, Ohio unexpectedly received a heartwarming show of community support when confronted with a hateful tirade.
Joel Diaz and Ethan White were holding hands and waiting in line at Mikey’s Late Night Slice pizza truck last weekend when another customer told them to cut out their “gay s–t,” the pair told Huffington Post.
“I was a bit startled by his words, but I didn’t expect what happened next. Almost every single person in that line made it known to him it was not OK for him to speak to us like that,” said Diaz.
Unfazed, the man continued his homophobic rant, Diaz said.
Other customers, both gay and straight, continued to argue with the man, but it was actually the employees of the pizza truck that finally squashed the situation.
:
“The guys who work the truck stopped what they were doing and leaned towards the window and told him they would not serve him because he was spewing hate. They said they support everyone in our community and that he should get out of line because they would not be serving him,” Diaz said.The man finally left, and moved by the incredible support from his community, Diaz posted about the experience on Facebook.
Thousands of shares later, Mikey’s Late Night Slice also chimed in saying the company can’t “tell you how proud we are of our truck workers that night for speaking up and doing the right thing.”
What fascinates me most about this is the obvious flaw in Al Gore’s comparison. The pizza thing is a classic case of “tolerance in the form of intolerance toward intolerance.” Therein lies a complex and most worthwhile debate, I think, about whether that can actually work. Maybe I’ll leave that for some other forum. Or not. But at any rate, before we disappear down that bunny trail, let us first inspect this fragile connection between crowd-shouting-down “his homophobic rant,” and doing the same thing against what the former Vice President calls “denial” against the climate change scam.
The tactic is the only connection between the two situations. That, and the lust behind it. There’s no other tie, at all. And I can say that without knowing much of anything about this “rant.” All I really know about it is that it seems to have started from the PDA, so the rant must have been about what the guy didn’t want to see in public. The hand-holding got to him. I mean, that’s what he said, according to the story. Dissent against the weird climate-change power play stuff, on the other hand, has nothing to do with that at all.
The climate-change snake oil has been sold, a lot of people aren’t buying it, because to be frank about it the sales job we’ve seen across the decades leaves a whole lot to be desired. It’s full of obvious fibs, tainted information, thoroughly corrupted peer-review processes, contradictions, institutional arrogance and other red flags. It relies on snobbery, buffoonery, selfishness and intellectual laziness; even with all that, a lot of climate change dissenters would suffice with an eyeball roll, standing quietly by on the sidelines while the alwarmists continue to hog the limelight and insist on the final word and make asses out of themselves, except for one thing. It has become clear that the outcome is likely to be determined by a shouting match, like it or not. So it doesn’t do any good to quietly mutter to oneself, “I’m on to that Al Gore guy, I’m not falling for this.”
Unknowns are being falsely characterized as knowns. While that’s going on, the alwarmists are making noises about moving money around. We’re talking huge, big money; it’s a trillion-dollar scam. Those who can see this is happening, have to get out, and speak up. Professional hysterics like Al Gore put us into that position.
In fact, if his analogy works at all, it’s people like Al Gore who are the homophobic guy because they’re the ones causing the original offense, trying to usurp unilateral control over the prevailing viewpoint. To run a successful business that employs people and has a beneficial effect on the economy, would be like the holding hands. “Cut out that gay shit” is essentially the same message, is it not, as “cut out that carbon-emitting shit”? And the skeptics are like the rest of the crowd, and the truck guys, delivering the message: Uh no, if we’re settling this by majority rule, a dubious proposition at best, you didn’t characterize that majority-rule fairly just now, and we’re here to make sure you know that.
But of course, you don’t vote on the freezing temperature of water. We don’t conclude things based on one faction deliberately and methodically eliminating from the discussion anybody who doesn’t go along — although it is nice to have Mr. Gore on record as saying, that’s how he wants to “win this conversation and winning a conversation can make all the difference.” I have often thought that the toddler-desire to win-all-arguments was at the center of this whole thing, and ice core samples and satellite radiation measurements never had anything to do with it. Now that there is proof, I’m not surprised. This isn’t climate science, it’s a behavioral disorder we’re seeing play out. Psychology has a lot more to do with it.
If there’s a hitherto undiscovered and undiagnosed disorder playing out, Popular Science magazine (via CNET) must have it. They’ve just shut down their comment section. Suzanne LaBarre, online content director, put up some explanation as to why:
…even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader’s perception of a story, recent research suggests. In one study led by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Dominique Brossard, 1,183 Americans read a fake blog post on nanotechnology and revealed in survey questions how they felt about the subject (are they wary of the benefits or supportive?). Then, through a randomly assigned condition, they read either epithet- and insult-laden comments (“If you don’t see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these kinds of products, you’re an idiot” ) or civil comments. The results, as Brossard and coauthor Dietram A. Scheufele wrote in a New York Times op-ed:
Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself.
In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought.
Another, similarly designed study found that just firmly worded (but not uncivil) disagreements between commenters impacted readers’ perception of science.
If you carry out those results to their logical end–commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded–you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the “off” switch.
A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to “debate” on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.
It’s a good argument if, and only if, her concern is limited to “trolls,” and if it is truly mistaken to have these things “up for grabs again.” But as one of my friends pointed out on the Hello Kitty of Blogging…what are we to make of it when there is a debate going on, and one side of the debate starts manipulating these control levers to shut the debate down? What are we to think?
If I had a dime for every time some pious organization said that the “science” is settled, that there is no room for debate, as if that were the period at the end of a very long sentence nobody actually remembers reading, I’d be obscenely rich by now. And then a week later, science would say, no, turns out eggs are good for you and not cholesterol-laden death.
My perspective is that nothing is settled if you can’t, or won’t, make the case for it, and then defend it against opposition. And here, “Popular Science”, which by virtue of eliminating reader comments, now has one less way to tell just how popular their “science” actually is, just pulled a “the debate is over and we’re right–no reason for further discussion” card out of the deck.
:
If I’m on the fence on a controversial issue, what am I to make of the side that shuts down debate, versus the side that wants to actually have a conversation? If global warming, for example, is such a given, then why can’t the following questions be fielded in a maturely scientific manner:Why is the entire theory predicated on doctoring numbers (throwing scalars on top of actualized data to create the infamous “hockeystick graph” that started it all)? Or why has there been a systematic suppression of contrary evidence (Climate-Gate)? Why are the models constantly being tossed out and rebuilt to fit the current weather patterns instead of the forecasted warming projections we were told were inevitable? Why did the name change specifically from “global warming” to an amorphic “climate change,” if the underlying theories in the original models were sound and specific enough on which to base public policy? Where’s the null hypothesis, if both hot and cold weather point to the same conclusion? Why has the so-called warming trend been flat (and even inverse) in the last fifteen years? So if it’s hot, if it’s cold, or if temperatures don’t change much (are flat), then it’s all because of global warming/climate change/whatever it’s called next?
I guess I shouldn’t bother asking because it turns out we’re all too dumb to understand, or that some among us might make pejorative comments on a website that might sway others against the “settled science”. So the discussion isn’t worth having. It can’t be that what’s passing for popular science nowadays is devoid of true scientific methodology, but is instead, fueled by a tribal-driven false consensus and political expediency. No, that’s not it. We just can’t be trusted to be a part of the discussion, and I’m fine with that.
Which leads us to an overdue inspection of the idea that the alwarmists have a better command of the “science.” This was dealt a blow recently during a Q&A session with noted and outspoken alwarmist David Suzuki (via Herald Sun, via Instapundit).
BILL KOUTALIANOS: Oh, hi. Since 1998 global temperatures have been relatively flat, yet many man-made global warming advocates refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Has man-made global warming become a new religion in itself?
TONY JONES: David, go ahead.
DAVID SUZUKI: Yeah, well, I don’t know why you’re saying that. The ten hottest years on record, as I understand it, have been in this century. In fact, the warming continues. It may have slowed down but the warming continues and everybody is anticipating some kind of revelation in the next IPCC reports that are saying we got it wrong. As far as I understand, we haven’t. So where are you getting your information? I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they’re thinking.
TONY JONES: Do you want to respond to that, Bill?
BILL KOUTALIANOS: Sure, yeah. UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS data shows a 17-year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the Co2 warming theory?
DAVID SUZUKI: Sorry, yeah, what is the reference? I don’t…
BILL KOUTALIANOS: Well, they’re the main data sets that IPCC use: UAH, University of Alabama, Huntsville; GISS, Goddard Institute of Science; HadCRUT. I don’t know what that stands for, HadCRUT; and RSS, Remote Sensing something. So those data sets suggest a 17-year flat trend, which suggests there may be a problem with the Co2.
DAVID SUZUKI: No, well, there may be a climate sceptic down in Huntsville, Alabama, who has taken the data and come to that conclusion. I say, let’s wait for the IPCC report to come out and see what the vast bulk of scientists who have been involved in gathering this information will tell us. You know, we can cherry pick all kinds of stuff. Cherry pick, in fact, the scientists that we want to listen to, but let’s listen to the IPCC
TONY JONES: David, this is one of the most frequently asked questions or claims made by climate sceptics: a global temperature spiked in 1998 and since then have plateaued, even though they remained at very high levels, as you said, over the 10 years.
DAVID SUZUKI: Yeah.
TONY JONES: It is a problem, isn’t it, explain that, for scientists?
DAVID SUZUKI: Well, what’s the problem? I mean they’re concluding still the warming…
TONY JONES: Well, the problem is it didn’t actually get warmer when people expected it to?
DAVID SUZUKI: Well, as far as I understand it is getting warmer, so I don’t know what the disagreement is there.
There’s a lesson here. I’ve said it before but I’ll go ahead and say it again: Learning, as in changing your behavior non-instinctively as a result of getting wiser/smarter, is achieved by way of accumulating information. You don’t get smarter by removing information. You may achieve greater dexterity in determining the form and shape of the final conclusion by doing that…hence the temptation. There is a temptation there for people who already know what they want to have done, and can’t be bothered with the facts. They tend to want to get “smarter” by throwing away information, making themselves dumber. To them, it makes sense. You make a pencil sharp by removing whatever isn’t part of the “point,” right?
Their justification for throwing away information and acting as if they’re getting smarter by doing so, is that the information they’re throwing out is bad. There is some merit to this, but if that is the concern then the answer is to keep adding information. The fact that such-and-such a piece of information is bad, is in itself more information, right? This is demonstrable when you start to get quizzed about why the first piece of information was bad. As Suzuki most ably showed, when you’re asked this and you can’t answer, because you’ve been playing this little game of “it doesn’t fit my narrative so out it goes” — you don’t look very smart, and there’s a reason for that. People don’t get the feeling they’re getting any smarter by listening to you. Because they aren’t. In that situation, you have nothing to add to a real conversation.
This is the problem, I think, with the former Vice President’s advice. It’s a problem staining the entire climate-change boatload of power-mongering, media-manipulation and snotty condescension, stem to stern. Lately it’s become a constant thing — they can “win” all the arguments, provided there is nobody else participating in those arguments. I imagine that must feel pretty satisfying. It’s always fun to tell the people who disagree with you, or are merely asking unwelcome questions, begone & don’t let the doorknob hit ya where the Good Lord split ya. Winning arguments is fun! But this doesn’t bring you any closer to the truth when it’s done this way. And that matters, in ways that are actually important, to all of the rest of us.
Ignorance is ignorance. Blocking out information makes you ignorant. I know a lot of people think it’s somehow more complicated than that…but I don’t think so. I doubt that even after listening to and reading all they’ve had to say about it, which is something I notice they’re not willing to do with the arguments of others.
Al Gore’s whole point was to not let climate change denial go unchallenged. That must mean spread ignorance; David Suzuki showed how to do this, and since his knowledge is incomplete by way of stenciled selection, he was left just stammering “I don’t know where you’re getting that” over and over again. The alwarmists are constantly telling each other, and everybody else, not-to-listen to such-and-such, not-to-read such-and-such. From that, I conclude that the way Suzuki did it, is the way it’s supposed to be done: Tell everybody how to remain ignorant, and then keep doing it, over and over again.
They may think that has something to do with “science.” I have a different meaning in mind.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Yeah, it really is tribalism at its core. Not that all tribalism is bad, it’s just bad when the tribe is wrong. It goes like this. “Our tribe believes that man is warming the earth and it will lead to catastrophe unless we repent and go back to the middle ages. Anyone who does not believe this will be ridiculed and shunned.”
If I look back at all the things I’ve said discussiong this whole issue, I smile with satisfaction with the knowledge that my most humble contribution to the effort was the coining of the term “alwarmist” – and it may well turn out to be the greatest. It’s catching on, eh?
- philmon | 09/25/2013 @ 13:01Yeah I usually link back to your site when I use the word. Guess I should go back and do a quick-edit so I can continue this.
It also has not escaped my notice that the partial-thought-template of “anyone who does not believe this will be ridiculed and shunned” is, in itself, a throwback to the middle ages.
- mkfreeberg | 09/25/2013 @ 13:09Gay pizza? Is that when they hold the pepperoni?
Oh! I’m back baby! Password freakin’ works! Whaaooooo….!!!
- tim | 09/25/2013 @ 13:20Again with this crap. Honestly, I’m almost to the point where I just go ahead and assume someone is lying when he starts going on about “science.” The same folks who fervently believe that everything else on the (rapidly warming) earth is a “social construction” are forever going on about how this one thing — and only this one thing — is immutably true.
- Severian | 09/25/2013 @ 14:09No need to link back. I’m just happy it’s spreading.
- philmon | 09/25/2013 @ 14:10That’s a great observation. Going to have to file that one away …
- philmon | 09/25/2013 @ 14:51But why raise crops on Brawndo?
Because….Brawndo has what plants CRAVE!
CLEARLY there’s a spot for the ex-VP (this guy was ONE rolling pin/fry pan smack of “justified” domestic violence away from the “3:00 AM call re-boot” button?) if Rev. Al, or “Ed” suddenly retire “to spend time with their familys” or something. That Alan Alda looking guy isn’t sounding too “mental- healthy” lately either. There’s a spot or two available IMMEDIATELY that would benefit from at LEAST an American citizen’s accent.
- CaptDMO | 09/25/2013 @ 21:33mkfreeberg: Blocking out information makes you ignorant.
Sure, but the skeptics aren’t providing any information; they just cherry-pick the data to make mutually inconsistent arguments. Virtually all the data is coming from climate scientists, the majority of whom support theories of anthropogenic climate change.
mkfreeberg: David Suzuki showed how to do this, and since his knowledge is incomplete by way of stenciled selection
He’s not a climate scientist, nor does he claim to be.
- Zachriel | 09/26/2013 @ 08:10Virtually all. The majority of whom. These are non-statements.
Seems y’all have nothing more to contribute than Mr. Suzuki.
- mkfreeberg | 09/26/2013 @ 08:21mkfreeberg: These are non-statements.
Of course they are statements.
- Zachriel | 09/26/2013 @ 08:44In the same way junk-food is food.
- mkfreeberg | 09/26/2013 @ 08:47mkfreeberg: Blocking out information makes you ignorant.
Zachriel: Sure, but the skeptics aren’t providing any information; they just cherry-pick the data to make mutually inconsistent arguments. Virtually all the data is coming from climate scientists, the majority of whom support theories of anthropogenic climate change.
Got it! You are illustrating how you block out information, so that you don’t have to grapple with the facts. Good work.
- Zachriel | 09/26/2013 @ 08:52Got it! You are illustrating how you block out information, so that you don’t have to grapple with the facts. Good work.
Um, yeah. Just like y’all did.
Virtually all the data is coming from…
Can’t just come out and say “all the data is coming from” because it would highlight too starkly that y’all just tossed out all the data y’all didn’t like.
…the majority of whom support theories of anthropogenic climate change.
Can’t say “all of whom” because it wouldn’t be true. This, too, would expose y’all’s game of “After we get rid of everyone who doesn’t agree, it’s unanimous!”
- mkfreeberg | 09/26/2013 @ 08:55mkfreeberg: Can’t just come out and say “all the data is coming from”…
Can’t say that, because it isn’t true. There are some skeptics who work in climate science, but they are relatively few in number. Their data is certainly considered by their peers.
mkfreeberg: Can’t say “all of whom” because it wouldn’t be true.
That’s right!
In any case, your claim that our previous comment was a non-statement was false. Not only were they valid statements, but they were accurate. But you can’t judge that when you simply wave your hands and pretend they were non-statements.
“A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.”
- Zachriel | 09/26/2013 @ 09:04Actually, I said they were statements in the same sense junk food is food. In that sense, they are “non-statements.”
And this is true. If you were to charge me with the crime of waving my hands and simply ignoring what I don’t like — which it looks like you’re indicting me on exactly that — the ramifications would be…well, pretty much the same as passing up a gummy bear or marshmallow or something. They are fektoids, just like “Suzuki never claimed to be a climate scientist” — their veracity would survive a diligent and skeptical inspection, but their relevance would not.
How dare you wave your hands and ignore the verifiable fact that the seventh avatar of Vishnu was Rama! It’s true! But…not relevant in any way.
If y’all were to amputate the weasel-qualifiers of “majority of” and “virtually,” then the statements would become relevant. But then they would cease to be true.
- mkfreeberg | 09/26/2013 @ 09:29mkfreeberg: Actually, I said they were statements in the same sense junk food is food. In that sense, they are “non-statements.”
Yes, you modified your original statement.
mkfreeberg: They are fektoids, just like “Suzuki never claimed to be a climate scientist” — their veracity would survive a diligent and skeptical inspection, but their relevance would not.
Of course it’s relevant. Suzuki isn’t relying on his own expertise, therefore pointing to his lack of expertise is a strawman argument.
- Zachriel | 09/26/2013 @ 09:35Yes, you modified your original statement.
Another fektoid. It is true and verifiable that I used different words; whether the meaning changed in any significant way, would be highly debatable and probably wouldn’t pass a diligent and skeptical inspection.
Of course it’s relevant. Suzuki isn’t relying on his own expertise, therefore pointing to his lack of expertise is a strawman argument.
At about thirty seconds in the video, David Suzuki is introduced. Looks like y’all need to go back and watch that part again, you’re starting to cross the line from fektoid to factoid.
- mkfreeberg | 09/26/2013 @ 09:45Suzuki: I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they’re thinking.
- Zachriel | 09/26/2013 @ 09:55Right. So he revised his credentials, once he got called out on his lack of grasp of the very basic facts…which even an “activist” should be expected to have.
Yet, he was introduced as an activist-and-scientist who’s going to do Q&A about global warming. I think most people, hearing that, would naturally assume this is a qualified climate scientist.
Now, we have to ponder how many zoologists like David Suzuki, are within this “virtually all climate scientists.” If that number is zero, then there’s no (new) problem here. But it would be illogical to assume that, since Suzuki’s lack of hard climate-scientist credentialing was exposed only after an exceptional situation. Meanwhile, the alwarmists continue to ply us with unsubstantiated rumors about “so-and-so is in the pocket of big oil,” pretty much any time they hear an opinion from a so-called “skeptic” they don’t like…
So it looks like someone else has been hand-waving.
- mkfreeberg | 09/26/2013 @ 10:00Suzuki isn’t relying on his own expertise, therefore pointing to his lack of expertise is a strawman argument.
And yet the first thing an alwarmist does, when someone outside their little guild tries to look at their data, is scream “you’re not an expert!”
It’s fascinating. If you examine the data yourself, your conclusions don’t count because you’re not an expert. If you then turn around and cite experts, their conclusions don’t count because blah blah blah. Science.
- Severian | 09/26/2013 @ 10:03Yup. There’s always something.
It’s just “hand waving” with a bit of extra window dressing. More tools in the hand-waving tool chest.
- mkfreeberg | 09/26/2013 @ 10:07mkfreeberg: So he revised his credentials, once he got called out on his lack of grasp of the very basic facts…which even an “activist” should be expected to have. Yet, he was introduced as an activist-and-scientist who’s going to do Q&A about global warming. I think most people, hearing that, would naturally assume this is a qualified climate scientist.
Um, no. This is how he was introduced: “David Suzuki studied fruit flies to earn his PhD in genetics but shot to international prominence as a science writer and broadcaster through his acclaimed television documentaries. Today he is just as well known as an environmental activist …”
Suzuki was introduced as a geneticist. His first statement reiterates that he is not a climate scientist.
Severian: And yet the first thing an alwarmist does, when someone outside their little guild tries to look at their data, is scream “you’re not an expert!”
Not sure what an “alwarmist” is, but we are more than happy to discuss the evidence concerning climate change. However, that discussion is not directly pertinent to mkfreeberg’s excellent illustration of how to block out information that threatens his preconceptions.
Severian: Science.
We’ve had this discussion before. It’s not that difficult. A consensus of authorities in a valid field of study are much more likely to be right than someone outside that field. However, evidence always trumps authority. But few so-called climate skeptics do more than recycle previously rebutted arguments, and thrash straw men.
- Zachriel | 09/26/2013 @ 10:17We’ve had this discussion before
Yes, we have. And you all did little more than recycle previously rebutted arguments, and thrash straw men. If it’s not that difficult, how do y’all still not grasp it?
If you’re not sure what an alwarmist is, Morgan helpfully provided a link for you. Go ahead, click it — go learn something for once.
- Severian | 09/26/2013 @ 10:23Suzuki was introduced as a geneticist. His first statement reiterates that he is not a climate scientist.
Suzuki’s introduction:
“Answering your questions tonight, environmental activist, scientist, author and broadcaster David Suzuki. Please welcome our guest.”
Suzuki’s first statement:
“Yeah, well I don’t know why you’re saying that.”
So inspecting the first of y’all’s two statements, I find this is something y’all must not have wanted me to do. Examining the second of y’all’s two statements there, I again find this is something y’all must not have wanted me to do. Other than those two minor problems — perfection.
So much of alwarmist rhetoric is nothing more than bluffing. Now one might say the whole house is not necessarily eaten away by termites, just because one finds an infestation in the floorboards. But one thing is for sure, once one finds the infestation: Better not close on the deal just yet. This house has problems. And we keep finding more and more termites.
- mkfreeberg | 09/26/2013 @ 11:32mkfreeberg: Suzuki’s introduction:
“… David Suzuki studied fruit flies to earn his PhD in genetics but shot to international prominence as a science writer and broadcaster through his acclaimed television documentaries. Today he is just as well known as an environmental activist …”
mkfreeberg: first statement
“… I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they’re thinking.”
It’s hard to be more clear than that. Suzuki is a geneticists, a science popularizer, and an environmental advocate. Not sure if you are even trying to make a point. You have indicated previously you don’t think you need to support your claims.
- Zachriel | 09/26/2013 @ 14:54Oh dear. Looks like we’re going to have to disappear into another bunny-hole and debate the meanings of “introduction” and “first.”
How about we take a more direct approach. Is David Suzuki supposed to be an authority on climate change science, or is he not.
So far, it looks like y’all, along with everyone else circling the wagons around this ramshackle squishy-science, are taking rhetorical cues from Jon Stewart: Take what I have to say heart-attack seriously, until such time as you find a problem with it, at which time I’ll hide behind the “Hey, I’m just a comedian, and you’re doing something wrong taking me seriously” defense. If Suzuki isn’t supposed to know anything about the evidence, then why have the Q&A session at all?
To repeat: Answering your questions tonight, environmental activist, scientist, author and broadcaster David Suzuki. Please welcome our guest. I think most people, hearing that, would come to the conclusion they’re about to hear from someone who is an authority on the subject. Would that be somehow an unreasonable conclusion to reach?
If someone came away from the whole session thinking — the planet is doomed unless we mend our ways, I know this to be true because noted climate scientist David Suzuki said so — would y’all see a great necessity involved in correcting them? I’m doubting it.
- mkfreeberg | 09/26/2013 @ 15:19mkfreeberg: Is David Suzuki supposed to be an authority on climate change science, or is he not.
Suzuki is not a climate scientist. He said, “I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they’re thinking.” Not sure how it could be more clear.
mkfreeberg: I know this to be true because noted climate scientist David Suzuki said so
Suzuki is not a climate scientist. He said, “I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they’re thinking.” Not sure how it could be more clear.
- Zachriel | 09/26/2013 @ 15:36Not sure how it could be more clear.
It could have been more clear, had he not participated in a Q&A about global warming as a “scientist.” Or, if he was participating as an activist in one field and as a scientist in another field, there had been a bit more clarifying disclosure that his connection to the global warming scam was as an uninformed but passionate loudmouth — nothing more.
But then, I suppose, the ratings might’ve taken a tumble. Even though, in the ensuing dialogue, his position ultimately was clarified — as an uninformed and passionate loudmouth and nothing more.
One naturally has to wonder how many within the “virtually all” and/or “majority of” climate scientists, are in pretty much the same boat. It’s probably a field that deserves greater attention from the rest of us, wouldn’t y’all say? How many “scientists” are really just noisy complaining advocates who happen to have credentials in some field of science that is entirely unrelated to the topic receiving all this screeching and noise.
- mkfreeberg | 09/26/2013 @ 16:01mkfreeberg: It could have been more clear, had he not participated in a Q&A about global warming as a “scientist.”
He is a scientist, but not a climate scientist. However, he has talked to climate scientists, and is reporting what he has discovered to his audience.
mkfreeberg: How many “scientists” are really just noisy complaining advocates who happen to have credentials in some field of science that is entirely unrelated to the topic
That’s an interesting question. It turns out that the support for the climate consensus is stronger the closer the specialty is to climate science.
- Zachriel | 09/26/2013 @ 16:30He is a scientist, but not a climate scientist.
A distinction that was not made clear — until Suzuki got embarrassed. With that having been done, of course, it now becomes magically all-important. What was one way in one minute, becomes the opposite way the minute afterward — just like a pancake getting flipped. Exactly what severian was talking about here.
Not exactly the characteristic of any sturdy discipline of what we classically call “science,” be it “settled” or not.
Why not just cut to the chase and say, “one hundred percent of the scientists, AND the loudmouths who are not scientists, AND the scientists who are loudmouths-first-scientists second (because their field of expertise is outside of what’s being discussed) — agree with our narrative once we’ve booted out all the scientists and loudmouths who don’t agree with it.” Seems, once we get to the bottom of things, that’s what the claim really is.
- mkfreeberg | 09/26/2013 @ 16:43mkfreeberg: A distinction that was not made clear — until Suzuki got embarrassed.
Suzuki is identified as a geneticist in the introduction, and Suzuki in his first opportunity to talk said he was not a climatologist.
mkfreeberg: Why not just cut to the chase and say, “one hundred percent of the scientists,
Because it wouldn’t be accurate.
- Zachriel | 09/26/2013 @ 17:05Suzuki is identified as a
geneticist“activist and scientist” in the introduction….Y’all need to go watch the video 27 seconds in, again.
…and Suzuki in his first opportunity to talk said he was not a climatologist.
…no, y’all need to go watch the video about 90 seconds in, again. His first comment was “Well I don’t know why you would think that” or some such. He did the same bullshit bullying alwarmists do all the time, the “I know what I’m talking about and you don’t” shuck-n-jive. You are mis-characterizing the content and the tenor of his remarks.
Let’s just agree, if we can’t agree on anything else, that if Suzuki had not been embarrassed by his lack of knowledge, he would have continued to strut around as some kind of authority on the subject. Which he isn’t.
- mkfreeberg | 09/26/2013 @ 17:14There’s a word for insect geneticists dabbling in climate science, and that word is…amateur.
- Rich Fader | 09/26/2013 @ 20:56Here is Suzuki’s introduction:
So, Suzuki is introduced as a geneticist, documentarian, and activist.
Here is Suzuki’s first statement:
So, in his first opportunity to talk, Suzuki says he is not a climatologist.
Rich Fader: There’s a word for insect geneticists dabbling in climate science, and that word is…amateur.
That’s right. As Suzuki said, “I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they’re thinking.”
- Zachriel | 09/27/2013 @ 05:28Okay, so when y’all said “first statement” you didn’t mean the first statement. His first statement was, dunno why you’re saying that, the ten hottest years on record as he knows were in this century. His second statement was that there’s been no slow-down, as far as he understands.
By the way, the word I used was fektoid, not factoid. Y’all probably aren’t arguing what y’all think y’all are arguing, even though I explained this to y’all. But let’s see if I understand the rebuttal: When I said
Y’all found it worth pointing out — I really don’t know why — “David Suzuki is not a climate scientist, nor does he claim to be.” Okay…climate scientist or not, he’s doing a great job following Al Gore’s advice, challenging skeptical understanding with alwarmist ignorance, and always make sure ignorance gets the last word. So y’all’s rebuttal is…uh, I’m not quite sure. Al Gore wasn’t telling climate scientists to try to trump knowledge with ignorance. he was telling the Social Good Summit attendees to do that.
Are y’all trying to build up some argument that says Suzuki’s appeal at this event, was not as Guy Who Knows Something? That would be a very strange forum. Why would people go? To get his autograph because they saw him in a movie? Maybe they should’ve called it Q-and-Not-A.
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2013 @ 06:19mkfreeberg: Okay, so when y’all said “first statement” you didn’t mean the first statement. His first statement was, dunno why you’re saying that, the ten hottest years on record as he knows were in this century.
You are confusing sentence with statement. We understand English may not be your first language, but we had directly quoted the excerpt several times, so it should have been clear.
mkfreeberg: David Suzuki showed how to do this, and since his knowledge is incomplete by way of stenciled selection …
All knowledge is incomplete. Suzuki states he is relying upon experts in the field. He may be unaware of some of the dark corners of the Internet where ignorance abounds.
mkfreeberg: Are y’all trying to build up some argument that says Suzuki’s appeal at this event, was not as Guy Who Knows Something? That would be a very strange forum.
Because he explains the findings of the scientific community to lay audiences.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2013 @ 06:30mkfreeberg: Al Gore’s whole point was to not let climate change denial go unchallenged. That must mean spread ignorance
Why *must it mean* spread ignorance? ‘
Is this a correct statement: The climate science community has determined that it is very likely human activities are warming the atmosphere and oceans. They base this on billions of measurements, including historical records, as well as Earth station, radiosonde, and satellite instrumentation.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2013 @ 06:35You are confusing sentence with statement. We understand English may not be your first language, but we had directly quoted the excerpt several times, so it should have been clear.
Ah yes, the “Concede Nothing” rule. Now we have to have a knock-down drag-out about the meaning of “statement” because of the concede-nothing rule. NORMAL people would take the thing y’all said that got this little maelstrom churning…
…and say, alright, we concede that this is, as you say mkfreeberg, irrelevant, since Suzuki was presented to the gathering as a “scientist” who should have known something about the science.
But y’all can’t do that. So once again, we have to go arguing about a bunch of other irrelevancies.
Because he explains the findings of the scientific community to lay audiences.
Can’t do that when you don’t know anything.
Seems to me that, in the eyes of y’all and the rest of the community of alwarmist scammers and their apologists & sympathizers, David Suzuki ceased to be an authority figure when he failed to steamroll over the forum as he was exposed as an information-filterer-stenciler ignoramus. Not a climate scientist and never claimed to be!! Had he succeeded in the steamrolling, though, he would be A Respected Authority And You Better Listen To Him.
This strikes me as rather unfair to Suzuki. He was just following Al Gore’s doctrine of ignorance-should-prevail…following it to the letter…”We can win this conversation and winning a conversation can make all the difference.”
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2013 @ 06:46mkfreeberg: …and say, alright, we concede that this is, as you say mkfreeberg, irrelevant, since Suzuki was presented to the gathering as a “scientist” who should have known something about the science.
Because any reasonable listener would understand that Suzuki is a geneticist, and that he is relying on the expertise of climate scientists. Why? **Because he says so!** Instead of simply conceding this obvious fact, you argue about … nothing.
Suzuki said, “I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they’re thinking.”
mkfreeberg: Can’t do that when you don’t know anything.
Suzuki refers to the findings of climate science, though he does not know all the details necessary to reach his own independent conclusions. He leaves that to the experts in the field—just as most climatologists would reasonably defer to his expertise on genetics.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2013 @ 07:07mkfreeberg: Al Gore’s whole point was to not let climate change denial go unchallenged. That must mean spread ignorance
Why *must it mean* spread ignorance? Why, as a necessary consequence, which doesn’t appear to be entailed in the premise?
Is this a correct statement? The climate science community has determined that it is very likely human activities are warming the atmosphere and oceans. They base this on billions of measurements, including historical records, as well as Earth station, radiosonde, and satellite instrumentation.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2013 @ 07:09Because any reasonable listener would understand that Suzuki is a geneticist, and that he is relying on the expertise of climate scientists. Why? **Because he says so!** Instead of simply conceding this obvious fact, you argue about … nothing.
Well, I can’t disagree with that. So, what it is you’re trying to point out here? I never did say Suzuki is a climate scientist, what I said was that he’s doing a great job of following Al Gore’s advice. Although, exposing his ignorance about very basic facts might not have been a good move. But give him credit for facing down the deniers and at least trying to “win the conversation.”
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2013 @ 07:27Why *must it mean* spread ignorance? Why, as a necessary consequence, which doesn’t appear to be entailed in the premise?
Because anybody who’s been following the argument in the past several years, and is truly concerned about the increasing difficulties in selling the global-warming-swindle, would have known about the controversy surrounding the stalled/slowed/plateaued warming. Suzuki made several statements that he knew nothing about any of this.
Ignorance
the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness …
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2013 @ 07:30mkfreeberg: Because anybody who’s been following the argument in the past several years, and is truly concerned about the increasing difficulties in selling the global-warming-swindle, would have known about the controversy surrounding the stalled/slowed/plateaued warming.
There’s no significant scientific controversy. Satellite observations show the Earth continues to absorb more heat energy than it emits, surface temperatures remain among the highest in recorded history even after a double-dip La Niña, while ocean measurements show continued warming. The controversy is only in the political and cultural realm. Scientists have found it is very likely humans are responsible for the majority of warming since the middle of the last century.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2013 @ 08:15http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
Because he explains the findings of the scientific community to lay audiences.
What an odd argument this is! So we’ve got this Suzuki fellow, who isn’t a climate scientist and has never claimed to be one, explaining climate science to the laypeople. And that’s good, and he should be listened to and taken seriously. But didn’t we just have some survey about there not being a consensus about Global Weather, but that was bad, because some of the respondents were mere geoscientists and so they don’t count?
Science is fun!
- Severian | 09/27/2013 @ 08:23Severian: So we’ve got this Suzuki fellow, who isn’t a climate scientist and has never claimed to be one, explaining climate science to the laypeople. And that’s good, and he should be listened to and taken seriously.
Educators and documentarians certainly have a role to play in communicating complex scientific topics to the public.
Severian: But didn’t we just have some survey about there not being a consensus about Global Weather, but that was bad, because some of the respondents were mere geoscientists and so they don’t count?
Geoscience is a closely related field to climatology, but the survey you mention includes primarily petroleum engineers and geoscientists with limited exposure to climate science.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2013 @ 08:35the survey you mention includes primarily petroleum engineers and geoscientists with limited exposure to climate science.
I see. So geneticists are more science-y than petroleum engineers. Got it.
But wait… y’all seem to imply that just anyone can reach conclusions about climate science. Isn’t that why y’all are constantly linking your little .gifs?
Do me a favor, would you? I’m really trying to understand who’s “qualified” to opine on climate science. So far the hierarchy seems to go:
1) Y’all
2) Al Gore
2) Climate scientists who agree with y’all
4) Geneticists who agree with y’all
5) Laypeople who agree with y’all.
….
…
…
100) Climate scientists who don’t agree with y’all
101) People with advanced degrees in other hard sciences who don’t agree with y’all
102) Laypeople
Where do I fit in? I’ve got a PhD, but alas, it’s in underwater basket weaving. Is that more or less science-y than a B.A. in poetry studies?
Science is hard.
- Severian | 09/27/2013 @ 08:49Severian: So geneticists are more science-y than petroleum engineers.
While geneticists are scientists, neither are climate scientists.
Severian: I’m really trying to understand who’s “qualified” to opine on climate science.
Anyone can state a current scientific consensus, e.g. “scientists have determined that the Sun is millions of miles from Earth.” Anyone can argue to the evidence, but it takes more than blather to change a scientific consensus.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2013 @ 09:36Anyone can argue to the evidence, but it takes more than blather to change a scientific consensus.
So “UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS data [which] shows a 17-year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the Co2 warming theory” == blather.
Interesting.
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2013 @ 09:39mkfreeberg: “UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS data [which] shows a 17-year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the Co2 warming theory”
It’s blather when you ignore contrary arguments.
Temperature trend, 1996-2012
- Zachriel | 09/27/2013 @ 10:05UAH, +0.21°C
HadCrut4, +0.16°C
GISS, +0.19°C
It’s blather when you ignore contrary arguments.
Calling it “blather,” is in itself an exercise in ignoring.
Which leads to ignorance. Hence the term.
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2013 @ 10:15mkfreeberg: Calling it “blather,” is in itself an exercise in ignoring.
Actually, we responded directly to your false claim. You ignored our response.
In science, for a claim to be taken seriously, you have to support your claim, and respond to criticisms, indeed, attempt to anticipate criticisms. Before making a claim, try to look at it skeptically.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2013 @ 10:23Actually, we responded directly to your false claim. You ignored our response.
You can’t call a claim false, if you don’t understand it.
Well I suppose y’all can; y’all have. But that, too, is an exercise in ignorance.
In science, for a claim to be taken seriously, you have to support your claim, and respond to criticisms, indeed, attempt to anticipate criticisms. Before making a claim, try to look at it skeptically.
Good advice. But I’m not sure David Suzuki is reading. Maybe y’all can print it out and give it to him.
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2013 @ 10:26mkfreeberg: You can’t call a claim false, if you don’t understand it.
You said, UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS data show a 17-year flat trend. That was not accurate.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2013 @ 10:36Hmm. I got into a “discussion” with an alarmist the other day. He tried to throw the “you don’t understand science” argument, my degrees in physics and nuclear engineering notwithstanding. So I asked him to describe what he sees as science. He seemed at a loss for an answer, so I helped him out.
1) Observe
2) Hypothesize
3) Test the hypothesis (don’t forget the null hypothesis)
4) Revise hypothesis as necessary
If repeated tests are in agreement with your hypothesis, your educated guess is now qualified to become a theory. If the results are reproducible and ALL attempts to falsify the theory fail, you get a law, such as the law of gravity or Newton’s first law; I’m ignoring relativistic effects for simplicity. What you are NOT allowed to do is work backwards from the answer that you know is correct and insert “and then a miracle” occurs into that space when your test results (in this case, reality) fail to match your theory.
Here’s the thing: I used to be a data analyst and if you had presented me with the data points of estimated average annual global temperature for the last million years (thermometers were in short supply a scant few hundred years ago) and asked me to extrapolate the results over the next few hundred years, the odds are that I might have predicted a temperature decline; we are in a very long interglacial period right now.
Now shorten the time frame a bit, going back 200 years or so. The temperature during that time has been a fair bit higher than it is now. The data would be unable to predict that the temperature was going up. Heck, the Vikings named Greenland. That does not appear to have been due to the Nordic irony, nor does it appear as though their SUV industry was thriving. If memory serves, one of the retreating Greenland glaciers revealed signs of human habitation. How can that be? Maybe David Copperfield went back in time and magically transported the settlement under the glacier. Sure.
Now shorten the time frame a bit more. Start it right AFTER the Little Ice Age. This sets your baseline number really low. Extrapolate that data and you’re like to get “oh God we’re all gonna die”. Of course, when the last 15-17 years of temperatures fall outside of the 95% error bands of those predictions, you’d think that people would start to revise their hypothesis. You’d be wrong of course, because such a supposition is predicated on the idea that people are generally honest.
The biggest greenhouse gases as CO2, methane and water vapor. CO2 does have some affect on the heat in the atmosphere. that ability is not unlimited. In fact, there is a saturation point involved beyond which point the effect of CO2 on temperature is negligible. Methane also has a decent impact, but the biggest thermal forcer by far is water vapor.
Having had this discussion with other true believers, I know that actual data won’t impact your belief. In fact, if and when a mile thick glacier is grinding St. Louis to dust, my guess is that you and your ilk will still be screaming how we’re going to burn up. Any. Minute. Now.
- Physics Geek | 09/27/2013 @ 10:43Physics Geek: If repeated tests are in agreement with your hypothesis, your educated guess is now qualified to become a theory. If the results are reproducible and ALL attempts to falsify the theory fail, you get a law, such as the law of gravity or Newton’s first law; I’m ignoring relativistic effects for simplicity.
That’s not quite correct. A theory is an explanatory framework, usually composed of a number of interrelated claims. Scientific laws are statements of correlative relationships, and don’t necessarily imply a mechanism. But this is just semantics. Continue.
Physics Geek: What you are NOT allowed to do is work backwards from the answer that you know is correct and insert “and then a miracle” occurs into that space when your st results (in this case, reality) fail to match your theory.
Sure. On the other hand, you don’t have to explain everything to propose a valid scientific theory. We can have gaps, and still make scientific progress.
Physics Geek: asked me to extrapolate
Climate science is not based on naïve extrapolation, but is a mechanistic theory. At its most basic, the Earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2013 @ 11:06You said, UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS data show a 17-year flat trend. That was not accurate.
If by “not accurate” what you really mean is “accurate,” then that would be true.
Seriously though: Once again, we see y’all’s eagerness to label something “false” or “not accurate,” launches into silly side-bunny-trail arguments about nonsensical things. In this case, we’re once again going to have to have a knock-down drag-out about whether +0.16C fits my statement (quote, actually, of someone else) — “a 17-year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the Co2 warming theory.” For y’all’s characterization of my comment as “not accurate”…and of course, y’all are going to hold firm to that, so what follows becomes an absolute necessity…we must then conclude the +0.16C movement is meaningfully, and irreconcilably, different from “flat trend.”
There is another within y’all’s collective who says “before making a claim, try to look at it skeptically.” Since y’all’s claim is that +0.16C change is not a flat trend, how about follow y’all’s advice and look at that skeptically. Is there no way that an average movement of a hundredth-of-a-degree per year, could be reasonably regarded as flat?
I would point out, here, that the margin of error for the measurements is 0.06C.
It’s almost like y’all are insisting that claims — claims y’all don’t happen to like — should be evaluated “skeptically” by the person making them…but silly arguments about tangential things don’t have to be. How about showing me how wrong I am about that, by putting the burden of proof on your own side, and substantiating how truly unreasonable it must be to call a sixth-of-a-degree Celcius movement a “flat trend”; even though, I think, most reasonable people would call it exactly that.
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2013 @ 13:25Anyone can state a current scientific consensus, e.g. “scientists have determined that the Sun is millions of miles from Earth.”
We seem to once again be circling around to the “dishonest or meaningless” binary that shows up so regularly in leftist discourse. Ok, so Suzuki’s just up there rattling off talking points. Then why does his degree matter? Why introduce him as a scientist? Either his academic credential means something — “David Suzuki, geneticist” is somehow more qualified to opine on climate change than “David Suzuki, lion tamer” — or it doesn’t.
If it doesn’t, what particular reason do we have to listen to him? Why David Suzuki, and not Lisa Minelli?
If it does, then why? Why should we trust David Suzuki, with his degree in genetics, over Physics Geek, with his degree in physics? For that matter, why should we trust y’all when you presume to lecture PG on science? What are your qualifications, comrades?
- Severian | 09/27/2013 @ 13:38I think we should just cut the crap and go straight to the point.
Science is not about learning the nature-of-nature. It is not about accumulating any kind of information at all. It’s about arriving at a consensus and making it so that “everyone” agrees. This is done by conversion or else by some sort of obliteration/defenestration, that part of it doesn’t matter too much, the important thing is that everybody arrives at the same conclusion.
David Suzuki does, after all, possess a great deal of expertise at this even though he isn’t a “climate scientist,” because he has learned to parrot these things he doesn’t understand (and doesn’t claim to) with great passion and great precision. And that was the whole point of the Q&A forum, for David Suzuki to meet with “skeptics” and other people who hadn’t learned to repeat back the catechism, the way he has, so that he could teach them how. Rather like a dance instructor teaching dance moves.
That’s what “science” is all about now. So you see, science is easy, after all. You just have to repeat things back, correctly. Understanding the content? Meh. It’s all relative.
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2013 @ 13:49Jeez… and here I thought science was all about how the world works and stuff.
And meanwhile, the rats continue to desert the sinking ship. That hockey stick graph we’ve been using to scream gloom’n’doom for the last thirty years? Um, yeah, we…. well, we kinda lied through our teeth about that. Ooops.
I’m going to love hearing these jokers explain “global warming” to the parents of all those hippies who freeze to death Occupying stuff in the next few years. They’ll have to use the Animal House Defense: “You fucked up — you trusted us!”
- Severian | 09/27/2013 @ 13:55mkfreeberg: I would point out, here, that the margin of error for the measurements is 0.06C.
Which only goes to further support that the trend is not flat, but slowly rising from already historically high levels.
Furthermore, satellite observations show the Earth continues to absorb more heat energy than it emits, surface temperatures remain among the highest in recorded history even after a double-dip La Niña, while ocean measurements show continued warming. These changes can be shown to be due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Severian: Why introduce him as a scientist?
That was one of his many credentials provided. Don’t you ever get out?
Severian: If it doesn’t, what particular reason do we have to listen to him?
Only if you find him interesting and informative. The source of the science is expert opinion, which Suzuki is merely relating.
Severian: Why should we trust David Suzuki, with his degree in genetics, over Physics Geek, with his degree in physics? For that matter, why should we trust y’all when you presume to lecture PG on science?
We’re more than happy to provide citations to either expert opinion, or the data, as appropriate.
Severian: And meanwhile, the rats continue to desert the sinking ship.
Richard Muller is not the New York Times. In any case, Muller states in the article, “Berkeley Earth, a team of scientists I helped establish, found that the average land temperature had risen 1.5 degrees Celsius over the past 250 years. Solar variability didn’t match the pattern; greenhouse gases did.”
- Zachriel | 09/27/2013 @ 15:13That was one of his many credentials provided. Don’t you ever get out?
Cute, but you didn’t answer the question. Why introduce him as a scientist? If, as you say, he’s “merely relating” expert opinion — if he’s just there to entertain — then why do any of his credentials matter? TV programs are tightly scripted. Every word of that intro was vetted and approved by several people. Obviously they were trying to accomplish something by inserting the word “scientist” in there. What do you suppose that might be?
We’re more than happy to provide citations to either expert opinion, or the data, as appropriate.
So y’all are like Suzuki, just cutting-and-pasting talking points, with no real expertise of your own. Unlike, say, PG, who at least has degrees in related fields. And yet you keep telling us to trust the “experts”….
- Severian | 09/27/2013 @ 15:41Notably, y’all didn’t answer my question either.
I think my “cut the crap” explanation is the best one yet. Either we’re dealing with some entirely different meaning masquerading under the label of “science,” or the meaning of the word has changed. This new caption is applied to a process of coordinated and choreographed thought-movement, like a Chinese paper-dragon-dance, and has very little to do with learning anything new about the nature-of-nature.
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2013 @ 16:28@mkfreeberg,
I think you nailed it. I, too, can cut-and-paste “expert opinion” and even data. For instance, here’s War and Peace. Here’s a summary of expert opinion on it. And boom, I’m the David Suzuki of Russian literature.
- Severian | 09/27/2013 @ 16:46Severian: Why introduce him as a scientist?
Um, because he’s a scientist, as well as a documentarian, and activist.
It’s a standard introduction, much like this one.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2013 @ 19:00mkfreeberg: Either we’re dealing with some entirely different meaning masquerading under the label of “science,” or the meaning of the word has changed.
Science is the systematic study of the natural world, characterized by the scientific method. Having a discussion about science is not science. Making a documentary about science is not science. Being an activist is not science, but can be informed by science.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2013 @ 19:06And part of the scientific method is the attempt to falsify. Without the attempt to falsify, the science is weakened. It may reach the correct conclusion, but without that attempt to falsify it cannot claim to have relied on the scientific method. It then becomes a delusive label missing the content underneath.
- mkfreeberg | 09/28/2013 @ 07:39mkfreeberg: And part of the scientific method is the attempt to falsify.
That’s called hypothesis-testing, the scientific method.
- Zachriel | 09/28/2013 @ 08:08[…] When no one is left with any authority intact, save for those who can repeat back the catechism, then you have a good dancing-dragon and your choreography is complete. That’s a successful (anti) science-ing. Quoting myself yet once more: […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 09/28/2013 @ 08:29[…] When no one is left with any authority intact, save for those who can repeat back the catechism, then you have a good dancing-dragon and your choreography is complete. That’s a successful (anti) science-ing. Quoting myself yet once more: […]
- The Chinese Dragon Dance of “Science” | Rotten Chestnuts | 09/28/2013 @ 08:35It’s a standard introduction
Ah, I see. He’s just the most entertaining repeater-of-talking-points they could get on short notice. They would’ve gotten Jay Carney or Liza Minelli, but they were booked. Suzuki’s science credentials have nothing at all to do with it, and they were in no way trying to create the impression that Suzuki was an expert in the subject matter.
I can see why y’all are so insistent on this point. If just anybody can parrot back “consensus,” then folks with no credentials or relevant experience — like y’all — can award yourselves credit for being all science-y ‘n stuff, and even lecture folks on what is and isn’t “science.”
Nice work if you can get it. It’s obviously working out for David Suzuki. But it ain’t science.
- Severian | 09/28/2013 @ 11:55Severian: They would’ve gotten Jay Carney or Liza Minelli, but they were booked.
Didn’t know they were documentarians specializing in scientific topics.
Severian: they were in no way trying to create the impression that Suzuki was an expert in the subject matter.
Suzuki: “I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they’re thinking.” Not sure how it could be more clear.
- Zachriel | 09/28/2013 @ 13:06Suzuki: “I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they’re thinking.” Not sure how it could be more clear.
Had Suzuki not been led outside the sphere of his confident knowledge by the first question asked, causing his bully-pulpit to crash-and-burn, it would not have been clarified at all.
- mkfreeberg | 09/28/2013 @ 16:43mkfreeberg: Had Suzuki not been led outside the sphere of his confident knowledge by the first question asked, causing his bully-pulpit to crash-and-burn, it would not have been clarified at all.
Suzuki: “I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they’re thinking.” He also said, “I have always seen my role as a populariser of science.” Not sure how it could be more clear.
- Zachriel | 09/28/2013 @ 18:00Yeah, ok — so Suzuki isn’t a climatologist, and he admits he’s not a climatologist. The producers of that tv show did that for no reason whatsoever.
Makes sense. After all, y’all are desperate to get it on the record that “popularizers of science” are able to lecture the rest of us on science. That way, people like y’all — with no qualifications or relevant experience whatsoever — can continue to lecture us. Good show. And not in the least dishonest.
- Severian | 09/28/2013 @ 20:32Severian: so Suzuki isn’t a climatologist, and he admits he’s not a climatologist.
No, he’s just reporting on what climatologists say.
Severian: After all, y’all are desperate to get it on the record that “popularizers of science” are able to lecture the rest of us on science.
We didn’t bring up Suzuki. Change the channel.
- Zachriel | 09/29/2013 @ 06:19Yes, it’s always important to tell people what they should not be watching. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” But…there’s something going on there. David Suzuki was worth watching. Suzuki thought so; the producers thought so; we can presume everyone in the audience thought so.
And yet, when the time comes to defend Suzuki’s known and noted ignorance, the defense is — heck, it’s the accuser who should be accused, since one, two, three, altogether now, David Suzuki never claimed to be blah blah blah. Animal House defense.
- mkfreeberg | 09/29/2013 @ 08:30mkfreeberg: Yes, it’s always important to tell people what they should not be watching.
Watch it or not as you wish.
mkfreeberg: David Suzuki was worth watching. Suzuki thought so; the producers thought so; we can presume everyone in the audience thought so.
Suzuki is a science popularizer. That means he takes the findings of science and presents them in a form understandable to lay audiences. That doesn’t require being an expert in a field. It only requires knowledge of the findings and the basic methods of a field. It does not require detailed knowledge of the data or methods. Nor does he claim such a knowledge.
If, on the other hand, you think he is misrepresenting the consensus within climate science, that would be significant. However, not being aware of the particular data-sets is not significant.
- Zachriel | 09/29/2013 @ 08:41Suzuki is a science popularizer.
A what???
If, on the other hand, you think he is misrepresenting the consensus within climate science, that would be significant.
Not really. It would be like a dance instructor, who doesn’t understand the dance, teaching a dance class a bunch of moves that were outside the intent of whoever came up with the dance.
I think it’s significant that we’re calling this “science” when it’s really a bunch of gossip being spread around by people who don’t understand the findings. And it’s hugely significant that a whole generation of young people are being told what to think, and given the feeling that they understand it all, or at the very least are being instructed by someone who understands it all. Especially when this is all being used as a pretext for moving vast sums of money around, from people who produced the wealth that money represents, to people who did not.
- mkfreeberg | 09/29/2013 @ 09:10mkfreeberg: Not really. It would be like a dance instructor, who doesn’t understand the dance, teaching a dance class a bunch of moves that were outside the intent of whoever came up with the dance.
You are still very confused. He’s not teaching dance. He talking about dance.
mkfreeberg: I think it’s significant that we’re calling this “science” when it’s really a bunch of gossip being spread around by people who don’t understand the findings.
Again, if you think Suzuki is misrepresenting the scientific findings, that would be significant. Not be familiar with the latest data-sets, or how to do the statistical analysis, is not essential to his role.
- Zachriel | 09/29/2013 @ 09:28Again, if you think Suzuki is misrepresenting the scientific findings, that would be significant. Not be familiar with the latest data-sets, or how to do the statistical analysis, is not essential to his role.
Most reasonable people would agree that if your role is to explain something, you should understand whatever it is.
I myself would find it a bit odd if this discussion were to then venture off into a disagreement about that. Seems like something that should be axiomatic.
- mkfreeberg | 09/29/2013 @ 09:53mkfreeberg: Most reasonable people would agree that if your role is to explain something, you should understand whatever it is.
It isn’t required to be a specialist. For instance, science teachers, who might relay basic information about a variety of scientific fields, don’t have to be specialists in every scientific field that they teach.
- Zachriel | 09/29/2013 @ 12:08valid scientific theory
Yeah, and therein lies the rub. Your “scientific theory” by assertion, evidence be damned, says a lot about you. None of it good. To be fair, since one possibility for denial of evidence is a crystal meth habit, I would like to suggest that you get help if that indeed is your problem.
Climate science is not based on naïve extrapolation, but is a mechanistic theory. At its most basic, the Earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting.
Pull the other one. It has bells on it.
Seriously, your science by assertion might get you some congratulatory backslaps from other people snidely misunderstanding and misrepresenting actual science. For those of us who, I don’t know, actual do science, well let’s just say that your reception is likely to be somewhat less friendly. Check that, there will in fact be much laughter. Since you will be the object of said laughter, that might prove somewhat less than enjoyable to you.
To everyone else, I congratulate you on your attempts to have an honest and rational discussion about science, climatology and data. Unfortunately, you’ve run into the bane of scientific discussions. To wit, a true believer. Evidence, data, science: a demagogue needs not these things.
- Physics Geek | 09/29/2013 @ 12:59Zachriel: Climate science is not based on naïve extrapolation, but is a mechanistic theory. At its most basic, the Earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting.
Physics Geek: Pull the other one. It has bells on it.
Hand waving.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget.html
Zachriel: you don’t have to explain everything to propose a valid scientific theory. We can have gaps, and still make scientific progress.
Physics Geek: Yeah, and therein lies the rub. Your “scientific theory” by assertion, evidence be damned, says a lot about you.
Our claim is that we can propose a scientific theory that doesn’t explain everything, but still explains some things. For instance, to use your example, Newton proposed a theory of gravity that explained many phenomena, but didn’t provide an explanation for gravity itself. Hypotheses non fingo.
Have no idea how you got from what we said to “Your ‘scientific theory’ by assertion, evidence be damned'”. The rest of your comment just irrelevant posturing.
- Zachriel | 09/29/2013 @ 13:12Heh. “Hand-waving,” says the Cuttlefish Collective. “Irrelevant posturing,” they say.
We’re just following y’all rules here. One need not understand the first thing about science to be a “science popularizer,” y’all said, since those folks are just “talking about science.” They’re just cutting and pasting the opinions of “experts.”
This appears to be exactly what David Suzuki is doing. It also appears to be exactly what y’all are doing — cutting and pasting things you don’t really understand, and then crying “hand waving” when called on it. Suzuki can quote whatever climatologists he’s cherry-picked, just as y’all are experts in hitting Crtl-F.
It’s Jon Stewart science — folks like y’all and David Suzuki are happy to lecture as if they are experts until they’re called on it, at which point it’s “no no, I’m just a tv comedian, this isn’t real reporting, why can’t you take a joke.”
What are your credentials, comrades? Prove your expertise, as y’all insist we must rely on the judgments of “experts.”
You’ll refuse to answer, of course. Scientific theory by assertion, evidence be damned.
- Severian | 09/29/2013 @ 14:04Severian: One need not understand the first thing about science to be a “science popularizer,” y’all said,
That’s not what we said.
Severian: y’all insist we must rely on the judgments of “experts.”
That’s not what we said.
- Zachriel | 09/29/2013 @ 14:43Uh huh.
Not be familiar with the latest data-sets, or how to do the statistical analysis, is not essential to his role.
Uh huh.
It isn’t required to be a specialist. For instance, science teachers, who might relay basic information about a variety of scientific fields, don’t have to be specialists in every scientific field that they teach.
So y’all presume to come here and lecture us on what is and isn’t “science” by virtue of… what? An education degree and a pass on the Praxis II?
Jeez. No wonder more and more people don’t take the “scientific consensus” seriously.
- Severian | 09/29/2013 @ 14:55Severian: So y’all presume to come here and lecture us on what is and isn’t “science” by virtue of… what?
We are more than happy to support our position.
Severian: No wonder more and more people don’t take the “scientific consensus” seriously.
People have always had troubles accepting uncomfortable truths.
- Zachriel | 09/29/2013 @ 19:02Not good enough, comrades.
See, this is one of the many, many, many reasons I (and presumably others) can’t take y’all seriously — you presume to lecture about what is and isn’t science, and how we should trust “experts”, but will not disclose by what authority you presume to speak.
How are we to know that y’all know what you’re talking about? As you yourselves have pointed out, anybody can cut-n-paste links…..
- Severian | 09/29/2013 @ 21:43Severian: you presume to lecture about what is and isn’t science, and how we should trust “experts”, but will not disclose by what authority you presume to speak.
We don’t claim any authority. Rather we support our claims with reference to the evidence.
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 05:09Uh huh. Y’all been cutting and pasting the same little homilies –literally cutting-and-pasting; the exact same words — for years. Across multiple sites.
‘Cause that’s what folks who are capable of evaluating evidence and arguments do.
Pathetic.
- Severian | 09/30/2013 @ 06:21Severian: Y’all been cutting and pasting the same little homilies –literally cutting-and-pasting; the exact same words — for years. Across multiple sites.
We would be happy to have a more in depth discussion, but that requires you to make a substantive response rather than just waving your hands, and addressing our actual arguments rather than arguments we haven’t made.
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 07:26Uh huh. Funny how “in-depth discussions” with y’all always seem to be y’all cutting-and-pasting the same crap word for word. It’s all either “hand waving” or another cut-n-paste. That “liberals vs. conservatives” stuff Morgan cited goes back to 2005, fer chrissakes. There’s a word for folks who haven’t found even one single new way to express something in eight years, and “substantive” ain’t it.
- Severian | 09/30/2013 @ 08:44Severian: Uh huh.
We pointed out that Suzuki is not a climate scientist, nor did he claim to be; so pointing to his ignorance of some facet of climate science is a strawman. Nothing said since alters this.
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 08:59Uh huh. And I said that y’all continually cut-n-paste crap from as far back as 2005 (!!), displaying no understanding — or effort to understand — the underlying issues, or other points of view. That’s not a discussion, that’s a lecture.
Been there, done that, with people who actually had qualifications in the fields they taught. Call me when you get some new material.
- Severian | 09/30/2013 @ 13:32Severian: Been there, done that, with people who actually had qualifications in the fields they taught.
“The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) will provide a clear view of the current state of scientific knowledge relevant to climate change.”
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 14:50http://www.ipcc.ch/
Severian: Been there, done that, with people who actually had qualifications in the fields they taught.
“Climate change is real… It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate.” — National Academies of Science; Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, U.K., U.S.
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 14:51http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Severian: Been there, done that, with people who actually had qualifications in the fields they taught.
Nature, Climate Change
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 14:51http://www.nature.com/nclimate
We know you can cut’n’paste, Fishies. They must’ve taught basic HTML at your Aromatherapy College. And hey, I can cut’n’paste too! It’s actually pretty easy.
And look, there’s MIT climate scientist and former UN IPCC lead author Richard Lindzen saying:
He’s an expert, see. With a PhD and over 200 scientific publishing credits to his name. Y’all, meanwhile, have…..? Whatever it is, I’m sure it’s better than an emeritus professor at MIT’s got.
Send your little cut’n’paste bibliographies to him; I’m sure he’ll change his mind right away when he behold the power of y’all’s mad Ctrl-F skillz.
- Severian | 09/30/2013 @ 15:19Severian: And look, there’s MIT climate scientist and former UN IPCC lead author Richard Lindzen saying
Lindzen is certainly a scientist working in climatology, however, his claims about anthropogenic climate change have not held up, in particular, satellite data seems to contradict his infrared iris hypothesis. See Lin et al., The Iris Hypothesis: A Negative or Positive Cloud Feedback?, Journal of Climate 2002. His claims on water vapor feedback and climate sensitivity haven’t fared much better. See Trenberth et al., Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation, Geophysical Research Letters 2010.
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 16:06Shhhhhhh…. there there, dear hearts. I know he’s a big ol’ meanie. What you should do is, cut’n’paste a big bibliography of why he’s wrong, and then send it to him. That’s sure to make the bad man go away. I’m sure he’ll change his mind when he beholds the awesome power of y’all’s fully armed and operational ctrl-v.
- Severian | 09/30/2013 @ 16:10Severian: What you should do is, cut’n’paste a big bibliography of why he’s wrong, and then send it to him.
A simple example concerns Lindzen’s claim of negative feedback from water vapor. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo provided a natural experiment that showed water vapor feedback is positive, not negative. See Soden et al., Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor, Science 2002.
It’s useful to have contrarians in science, but Lindzen’s arguments are largely contradicted by the evidence.
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 16:18Lindzen’s arguments are largely contradicted by the evidence.
Well then tell him that. What with the .gifs and all, I’m sure y’all can convince him before suppertime.
I certainly don’t need any more examples of y’all’s awesome cut’n’paste skills. Y’all surely can type a bibliographic citation as well as I’ve ever seen. You’re a credit to the ol’ alma mater. (I notice y’all still haven’t quite figured out how to embed a hyperlink, but hey — it’s “Chesty LaRue’s Erotic Massage Academy,” not “Erotic Massage Academy and HTML-a-torium, right? Baby steps).
- Severian | 09/30/2013 @ 16:34Severian: Well then tell him that.
Lindzen is aware of the data. For whatever reason, he clings to his hypothesis. It’s not unusual. He is an outlier, and has not been able to produce the evidence necessary to overturn existing theory, or even to validate his own.
In evolutionary theory, there’s a similar situation with Alan Feduccia, who insists birds do not have a theropod origin, but deeper roots in archosaurs. He bases this on development of fingers in bird embryos. There are many lines of evidence which point to a theropod origin, but wrongly numbered digits has certainly been an interesting anomaly; that is, until it was shown that a frameshift can result in digit renumbering.
Consensus is not the same as unanimity.
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 16:47Lindzen is aware of the data. For whatever reason, he clings to his hypothesis.
Well, ok then. You’ve cut’n’pasted your fingers to the bone bringing the data to Lindzen’s attention. And y’all have surely convinced me that you can type a bibliographic citation. What more is left to say? Mission accomplished. Lindzen is for whatever mysterious reason un-cowed by all the .gifs on y’all’s rhetorical tool belt, but I am thoroughly impressed by your ability to press two keys simultaneously. It’s good to see that you’re branching out a bit, and at least cribbing some different material off Wikipedia, but really, there’s no need to go on — y’all are the Bruce Lee of control-v.
You can swim back to the aquarium in peace, knowing that you’ve defended the honor of Honest Bob’s Institute for the Janitorial Sciences.
- Severian | 09/30/2013 @ 17:08Severian: What more is left to say?
The current question in climate science is how much warming will occur, and what the effects will be.
- Zachriel | 10/01/2013 @ 04:59And again, it sounds like your opponent is Richard Lindzen, not me. I mean, if your little cut’n’pastes can’t convince him — an expert, with, like, a PhD and stuff — I guess you’ll just have to cut’n’paste ’em a few hundred more times. That’ll show him!
As for me, I’m thoroughly convinced y’all can repeat yourselves ad infinitum, and you’ve demonstrated that your ctrl-v skills are beyond compare. I’m in awe, frankly — y’all are so quick on the control key, it’s like y’all are some kind of ninja crossed with a jungle cat, if that cat-ninja hybrid had also won the Golden Right Mouse Button trophy at Mitzi’s School of Hair Design three years running. It’s, like, seriously impressive you guys.
- Severian | 10/01/2013 @ 05:19Severian: And again, it sounds like your opponent is Richard Lindzen, not me.
Lindzen’s views on climate change are contradicted by the evidence.
- Zachriel | 10/01/2013 @ 05:22Uh huh. And you should cut’n’paste all your bibliographic citations, all your little .gifs, all your links, into a big ol’ email and send it to him. I’m positive it’ll convince him this time. And besides, the honor of Fatima’s Salon for Sensual Dance demands it. Stand up for your alma mater!
- Severian | 10/01/2013 @ 05:37Severian: I’m positive it’ll convince him this time.
Some people can’t be convinced. Lindzen could even be right, but he hasn’t provided the evidence required to support his claims.
Severian: Uh huh.
The evidence contradicts Lindzen’s position. You can find a few citations above.
- Zachriel | 10/01/2013 @ 05:43Some people can’t be convinced
Wait…. you mean endlessly cutting and pasting the same few things over and over (and over and over and over) doesn’t work? Ooooohhh, man…. sucks to be y’all right now. Eight years of college down the drain.
- Severian | 10/01/2013 @ 05:45Severian: you mean endlessly cutting and pasting the same few things over and over
Don’t remember citing Soden et al., Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor, Science 2002. Perhaps we have.
In any case, the evidence is the evidence, and it doesn’t go away because you don’t want to look at it.
- Zachriel | 10/01/2013 @ 05:52Oh, hey, I see what you’re sayi….. ooops. Darn. Lost it. Oh well. Just keep on repeating yourselves; I’m sure it’ll work one of these days. The power of paste compels you!
- Severian | 10/01/2013 @ 06:03Zachriel: the evidence is the evidence, and it doesn’t go away because you don’t want to look at it.
Severian: Darn. Lost it. Oh well.
Well said.
- Zachriel | 10/01/2013 @ 06:13Ah, so it comes to this. We all knew it would:
LAST!
[Seriously, kids: Help is available. And it even contains expert opinions, so you know it’s trustworthy].
- Severian | 10/01/2013 @ 06:22And still it continues. I have to admit, watching this, umm, discussion– and by that I mean endless repetitions of proof by assertion versus actual facts and information= is akin to watching a train wreck. It’s hard to look away.
You know what’s pathetic? There’s a whole generation of people who been taught that science equals “what I assert or really, really believe”. Reality does not seem to have any effect on their preconceived notions.
- Physics Geek | 10/01/2013 @ 07:02Physics Geek: And still it continues.
Your first comment was substantive. We responded by noting several problems with your comment. You have now posted two additional comments on this thread which don’t address the topic, or our response.
- Zachriel | 10/01/2013 @ 07:08You have now posted two additional comments on this thread which don’t address the topic, or our response.
And if you don’t, PG, they’ll taunt you a second time! The power of paste compels you, Physics Geek! The power of paste compels yooooooouuuuuuu!!
- Severian | 10/01/2013 @ 07:13