It was July 31st of 2014 when I had the sheets pulled from my eyes and had the "acceptable level of deception" made clear to me. Until then I had in my head that there was a limit. In fact I believed that my normal, tedious practice of checking sources, was close to paranoia. With my history, however I accepted this aspect of myself -- acceptance being less expensive that therapy. As is pointed out in my discussion of the "Big Lie" most people, simply don't believe that someone, anyone, will be -- as Bill Weir so aptly described -- a willfully Ignorant Fuckstick -- but more than that, and this is where it gets into the mind bending realizations -- be not ignorant. To know the truth and still push the agenda of denial. Pushing it so strongly you wonder, "where does opinion stop, and national treason begin?"
This particular article is regarding the Climate Change issue. No, it is not a debate. You don't have debates about things that are fact. Ok?
As expressed so artfully by Jon Oliver, you do not have debates about facts. You might as well have a debate over which is larger, 5 or 15. Or if owls exist, or if there are hats. Your opinion is irrelevant. So, we don't need nor even want is an opinion poll on how many Americans believe the Climate Change problem exists. That poll is not pertinent to the problem,
However it does give valuable insight into the importance of a good, and effective educational system.
So I read that article, and then dropped down into the comment section to discover that Yes, there are people who are willing to publicly embarrass themselves, and put in writing that they believe the Climate problem is a myth. I point out to one person that yes, in fact there is a predictive method that has been accurate over 12 years down to within a single degree of accuracy for each of those years, and that the method has been tested, retested and peer reviewed several time, and found to be accurate, demonstrable and reproducible. That last one is really the most important of the set. If others can't reproduce your results, then it doesn't matter really what you come up with -- even if you come up with it every time.
After I point this out, another person tells me to read an article on Breitbart News...which that site and another like them Breitbart Texas and others are the worst "news" sites out there -- I wouldn't' believe it if they told me it was raining while standing out in the rain. But the commenter is telling me to look at a link offered in that comment section. So... I check it out. I go to the page, ignore the article and search for DiogenesDespairs. Finding him I check the page that he links to and check it out.
After working as a researcher for Google.com for a little more than three years, I developed a sense of authenticity which could be recognized simply by the presentation of the website itself. This is not a value that can be relied on of course, but nothing about this website set off any alarms. The coloring, tone, layout and font setting all had "academic" quality to them. First I read the page, which was slow going because this was real, academic writing in a field I don't get exposed to very often. But, after a time I realize that this is making a solid and possible argument which could explain and negate the Climate Change problem as we understood it.
So, putting on my research hat, I checked to see who this person was and began a background check for credibility. Dr. Michael Pidwirny turned out not only to be credible, but one of the masters of his field. He not only publishes but his articles are listed in Physical Geography (index rating of 12) and does studies for the National Council for Science and the Environment -- which despite its name, is not in fact a propaganda machine run by the Koch brothers but an actual foundation committed to the best use of science based knowledge -- and does not take positions at all on Environmental issues.
To sum up, the author, in ability, professional recognition, and publication is NOT the person you want to be challenged by -- because he is probably right. I decide that I need to learn more about his point of view because the first page I landed on is -- dense, and I admit to myself that my level of understanding could be off. After finding some other related papers of his I get some coffee and settle in for a few hours of reading.
It takes about fifteen minutes before I realize that something is amiss. Both of the new papers are highly supportive of Climate Change existing and being a direct affect caused by human activity. The dates are within the last two years. So I go back to see what the dates were on the web site. The date is 2006, older than the two papers but wildly different from them as well. Then, on another page, I read this small paragraph.
Fast checks and verification take me back to the comment area under the article I started with -- with these words in my head:
at this publication: http://www.eoearth.org/view/ar...
So I read that article, and then dropped down into the comment section to discover that Yes, there are people who are willing to publicly embarrass themselves, and put in writing that they believe the Climate problem is a myth. I point out to one person that yes, in fact there is a predictive method that has been accurate over 12 years down to within a single degree of accuracy for each of those years, and that the method has been tested, retested and peer reviewed several time, and found to be accurate, demonstrable and reproducible. That last one is really the most important of the set. If others can't reproduce your results, then it doesn't matter really what you come up with -- even if you come up with it every time.
After I point this out, another person tells me to read an article on Breitbart News...which that site and another like them Breitbart Texas and others are the worst "news" sites out there -- I wouldn't' believe it if they told me it was raining while standing out in the rain. But the commenter is telling me to look at a link offered in that comment section. So... I check it out. I go to the page, ignore the article and search for DiogenesDespairs. Finding him I check the page that he links to and check it out.
After working as a researcher for Google.com for a little more than three years, I developed a sense of authenticity which could be recognized simply by the presentation of the website itself. This is not a value that can be relied on of course, but nothing about this website set off any alarms. The coloring, tone, layout and font setting all had "academic" quality to them. First I read the page, which was slow going because this was real, academic writing in a field I don't get exposed to very often. But, after a time I realize that this is making a solid and possible argument which could explain and negate the Climate Change problem as we understood it.
So, putting on my research hat, I checked to see who this person was and began a background check for credibility. Dr. Michael Pidwirny turned out not only to be credible, but one of the masters of his field. He not only publishes but his articles are listed in Physical Geography (index rating of 12) and does studies for the National Council for Science and the Environment -- which despite its name, is not in fact a propaganda machine run by the Koch brothers but an actual foundation committed to the best use of science based knowledge -- and does not take positions at all on Environmental issues.
To sum up, the author, in ability, professional recognition, and publication is NOT the person you want to be challenged by -- because he is probably right. I decide that I need to learn more about his point of view because the first page I landed on is -- dense, and I admit to myself that my level of understanding could be off. After finding some other related papers of his I get some coffee and settle in for a few hours of reading.
It takes about fifteen minutes before I realize that something is amiss. Both of the new papers are highly supportive of Climate Change existing and being a direct affect caused by human activity. The dates are within the last two years. So I go back to see what the dates were on the web site. The date is 2006, older than the two papers but wildly different from them as well. Then, on another page, I read this small paragraph.
In the last few centuries, the activities of humans have directly or indirectly caused the concentration of the major greenhouse gases to increase. Scientists predict that this increase may enhance the greenhouse effect making the planet warmer. Some experts estimate that the Earth's average global temperature has already increased by 0.3 to 0.6° Celsius, since the beginning of this century, because of this enhancement.WFT? -- Having an odd, probably wrong, "couldn't be true, could it?" idea... I look for this information published some place else and I find the book on his personal area at his college -- and the page is different.
Fast checks and verification take me back to the comment area under the article I started with -- with these words in my head:
Wow.. that's interesting.. the website he uses to point at : http: //www.physicalgeography.n... is like -- a real web site... and the guy who it says wrote it... is like a real scientist with published papers in well known journals : Dr. Michael Pidwirny a Canadian even. Except, what he is saying on the Physical Geography web site... isn't what his papers say anywhere else in the world... For example, he says this :
"Without the greenhouse effect the Earth's average global temperature would be -18° Celsius, rather than the present 15° Celsius. In the last few centuries, the activities of humans have directly or indirectly caused the concentration of the major greenhouse gases to increase. Scientists predict that this increase may enhance the greenhouse effect making the planet warmer. Some experts estimate that the Earth's average global temperature has already increased by 0.3 to 0.6° Celsius, since the beginning of this century, because of this enhancement. Predictions of future climates indicate that by the middle of the next century the Earth's global temperature may be 1 to 3° Celsius higher than today."
So... like ... why is it that Deniers will go to such great lengths, far enough to forge a whole fricken website to lie about this? I mean, seriously. This is real, dangerous, earth killing stuff and Deniers are playing with it like it is a firecracker or something, like if they are wrong it will only hurt a little, and we'll figure something out. -- not going to happen like that people . This makes ISIS look like some kids on the corner kicking a can, alright?
So, yes.. they actually forged a website for this man, and altered the text of his book which they copied from his college website.
