Commentary calls for new ‘science of climate diversity’
There is cloud hanging over climate science, but one Cornell University expert on communication and environmental issues says he knows how to help clear the air.
In the December issue of Nature Climate Change, Jonathon Schuldt, assistant professor of communication, argues that only by creating a “science of climate diversity” can climate science and the larger climate change movement overcome a crippling lack of ethnic and racial diversity.
“There is an invisible, but very real barrier to climate engagement,” Schuldt said. “We need to engage with all kinds of diverse folks if we’re going to face this challenge. It will be a problem if the perception, and the reality, is that it’s a bunch of white male scientists at the table.”
The commentary, “Facing the diversity crisis on climate science,” was born when Schuldt and co-author Adam Pearson, an assistant professor of psychology at Pomona College, began talking about University of Michigan Professor Dorceta Taylor report, “The State of Diversity in Environmental Organizations.” In the report, Taylor examined non-profits, government agencies and grant-making foundations and found that non-white minorities comprised no more than 16 percent of staff in these institutions, in spite of constituting 29 percent of the U.S. science and engineering workforce and 38 percent of the American population. The report found that this “white Green Insiders club” narrows research and limits public engagement.
Schuldt agrees, but thinks more than just institutional changes are needed.
“What is missing is science-based solutions that focus on the fundamentally social nature of this problem,” the authors state. “Research from social psychology offers insight into factors that can powerfully influence participation.”
Schuldt and Pearson argue that early successes in diversifying other STEM research fields, and expanding the role women play in the environmental movement, point to three immediate and essential steps for climate research and outreach organizations.
First, boosting racial and ethnic diversity in climate research and outreach leadership can have an instant impact – provided this leadership is represented in how institutions present themselves. Put simply, Schuldt said, climate science “needs to present a more diverse face.”
Next, the authors urge all those who communicate around climate science to confront lingering stereotypes about environmentalism and minority engagement. Schuldt said one of the most pernicious fallacies needs to quickly be dismantled: that concern for climate issues is lacking in America’s non-white population. He notes recent work by social science researchers has shown this “underrepresentation by choice” idea to be false, and said climate leaders need to highlight the reality of deep minority community concern.
Lastly, the authors insist organizational messages can help bridge this gap. Among the most destructive ideas that needs to be abandoned, Schuldt said, is that communication around climate science should be “color blind.”
“Color-blind communications are, paradoxically, ineffective,” Schuldt said. “What it implies to minority individuals is that their unique perspectives and experiences don’t matter.”
Instead, Schuldt suggested, messages that highlight diversity while pointing toward a common goal are key: “We are all different, but we’re all in this together.”
The long-range goal, Schuldt and Pearson state, needs to be the creation of a new science of climate diversity. Climate scientists must collaborate with psychology and the social sciences, and these research partnerships need to be supported by academic, public and private institutions alike. Once that is done and a “new nexus of research” begins to form around how climate science and the climate change movement can increase racial and ethnic diversity, those fact-based findings can be used to guide public climate advocacy and policy reform efforts. That, Schuldt said, is the only way a problem as complex and far-reaching as climate change can effectively, and equitably, be addressed.
“Diverse teams are better at solving complex problems, and there’s every reason to believe this is the same, if not more important, when facing climate change,” Schuldt said.
Cornell University has television, ISDN and dedicated Skype/Google+ Hangout studios available for media interviews.
-30-
scratches head…..
Yeah, me too. I just pass ’em on, I don’t write ’em
Thanks for passing on – it’s incredible! They clearly live on another planet.
I was having a good morning until I read this. Unbelievable.
aaargh…
this worship, for lack of a better term, of diversity is galling.
Im no fan of the german government during WW2…but that diverse group of guys did develop the technology that got the US to the moon…autobahns….the panzerfaust, and on and on and on. The lilly white group pf physicists working on the manhattan project developed the bomb.
All those european jews created the field hitler derided as “jewish physics”
Im unsure just how the virtues of diversity became the meme that it has become.
puzzling really.
Racism is just a tool to attack the Western middle class and culture? Divide and conquer politically and culturally?
“Color-blind communications are, paradoxically, ineffective. What it implies to minority individuals is that their unique perspectives and experiences don’t matter.”.
Well, in science, that’s both right and wrong. Of itself, someone’s unique perspective and experience doesn’t matter. But if it leads to testable scientific insight, then it does matter.
“Schuldt said one of the most pernicious fallacies needs to quickly be dismantled: that concern for climate issues is lacking in America’s non-white population.“.
What an insult to assume that this group being smarter than whites must be a fallacy.
Utter garbage. I hope the authors weren’t paid for this.
“Facing the diversity crisis in climate science”
Adam R. Pearson & Jonathon P. Schuldt
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n12/full/nclimate2415.html
Climate change is a scientific question: Is the human-caused catastrophic warming hypothesis consistent with the facts. How does it change from that to a sociology driven quest for gender equality. And then there’s this gem: “Next, the authors urge all those who communicate around climate science to confront lingering stereotypes about environmentalism and minority engagement.”
Who cares about minority engagement? That has nothing to do with climate science. It has nothing to do with whether the observable data supports the human caused, catastrophic global warming hypothesis. Its not climate science. It’s something else I can’t even put a label on. In any event, sound- like NASA and CRU and NOAA all need to spend a whole bunch of money to hire Al Sharpton and Gloria Allred to host a green/gender/race reeducation camp for all greens. Of course the gvt will pay for it.
When you get this kind of junk, the field has jumped the shark. It has gone WAY past science and has become just another movement to get money and power from other peoples and benefit yourself and your friends with that money and power, making you feel good and moralistic and superior in the process of getting the money and power.
davideisenstadt
December 8, 2014 at 1:18 pm
” All those european jews created the field hitler derided as “jewish physics””
“Im unsure just how the virtues of diversity became the meme that it has become.”
Well, maybe it helps to look up who Adorno, Marcuse and Horkheimer were. Hint, the anser is in the first sentence I quoted from you.
To an assistant professor of communication every problem is one of poor communication.
The notion that the problem is flawed science would never occur to him.
A possible solution.
http://indulgy.ccio.co/78/h9/3g/108579040985914493F9YRS2fJc.jpg
What we need; irrespective of colour or creed, is a bit of honesty from the warmist brigade. I don’t see that now and have little hope for the future.
It is worse than that. These Bozos are arguing explicitly that discovering and disseminating the truth is not the principal objective. In their world, having scientists who “look like America” is more important than having scientists who are good at figuring out how the world actually operates.
Here is the quote: “Color-blind communications are, paradoxically, ineffective. What it implies to minority individuals is that their unique perspectives and experiences don’t matter.”
If that idea is accepted as the hiring policy, it can only mean passing over better scientists in the interest of racial bean-counting.
Well, TYoke, if only having white guys botch climate science has gotten us where we are, then maybe a little racial diversity would get us some folks who are actually capable of it.
The thing is, that’s not what this author is talking about. What makes me smh is that these folks actually believe their problem is a communication problem, not a problem with shoddy science.
She’s looking for a grant so she stuffed everything from the Luvvies playbook into her speech as best she could.
As near as I can tell, they are proclaiming that the answer to “2+2=”, depends on the level of melanin in your skin.
I’m scratching both ends on this one. Shoulda seen it coming!
They haven’t been able to convince the public with the science, so they’ll attempt to use diversity to divert the attention from the science.
small wonder:
CO2 spoken is –
see, owe too
– votes + fundings –
leluja.
Good luck with that. He definitely needs to get out more
My mind is blown.
“Facing the diversity crisis on climate science”
So now there is a climate crisis, which is worse than we thought, and a diversity crisis regarding the climate crisis, which is worse than we thought that we thought.
Wow.
It is all very simple. There is money in the climate crises, not so much any more, perhaps, in social studies concerning racism, integration and all that. So what to do? Just comine them and -voila! The tap is open again.
Mine too Richard. Haven’t the minorities suffered enough. Why should they be dragged into the fraud unless they think that when the gig is up it will be helpful to have minorities sharing the blame with them.
Not only that, but we didn’t even know that we thought it (or anything diversity-related), because we may have been thinking about empirical data and other sciency kinds of things….
I’ve never figured out how racial diversity, all by itself, brings anything to a scientific discussion; now, scientific background-related diversity might be really helpful in designing experiments and interpreting the data. I really do not see how racial diversity can inform empiricism in any meaningful way.
It seems like a kinda holistic, inclusive, way to solve a problem that does not exist.
With so many nations represented at Lima, there is certainly a very large racially and culturally diverse group looking to share in the hoped for $100 billion.
Correction: 500 billion, per year. They upped the ante in Lima. Or according to Figueres, 90 trillion (yes, with a ‘t’), over the next 15 years.
And she should certainly know the maintenance costs of the Green’s lavish lifestyles.
$6T / yr.
Now who couldn’t use that, eh?
So that would be 6% of annual GDP. By Stern’s criteria, it’s cheaper to just cop the AGW.
OOOOOOOOHHH…. I get it now.
The problem isn’t that the message is flawed, it’s that it’s been a bunch of European men delivering the message.
Well, if you can beat them, pull the race card…
Leave it to O’s administration to whip that poor horse.
Good science is blind to differences of race, sex, religion, etc.
Bad science stems from opinion and so is ingrained in social constructs like these.
So, the only reason they could possibly need this “diversity” is because they aren’t doing real science.
Yes, the answer, whatever it is, has little to do with science.
If selling a scam to “countries of color” that will slow their development, or even keep them in the third world, marketing success can be improved by having “people of color” on the sales team.
Of course, global warming couldn’t be a disinformation and distraction program to get folks to move north, into the teeth of an oncoming ice age, while the elites set up their citadels to rule in the tropics. Probably not, but new strains of ebola, outside sponsored regime change/chaos, and rumors of sterilization vaccines make one wonder.
The other side of that is that they dont want the only countries that will be viable come the “extreme cooling” to be run by non whites
Good one. I think that you are 100% correct with no need for editing or modification. Problem analyzed and solved.
+1
These fools need to get the math & science correct…PERIOD.
Teaching “diversity candidates” how to do fraudulent science is not the answer.
Why not? You don’t think they can do as good a job of hosery as middle-aged while males?
What took them so long . I heard this in our organization 40 years ago, when daily we were besieged with the message that the trees, wildlife ,fishies, air quality and water resources would benefit from diversity. But, hey, when you run out of ideas for another research grant, anything is fair game. Think of the new agencies that might have an interest.
Ooops…wait a minute. These fools are “communication experts” and “social psychologists” – by definition they can’t do science.
“Diverse teams are better at solving complex problems” = Give us Psycho-Communicators more money for fabricating more unhinged Propaganda because real Science shows that CO2″Climate Change” is Falsified and “Green Energy” is a proven failure = “Only Lean Green will Keep Faith Alive!”
Do I sense another Gruberization coming?
I’d like to know if Obama call Gruber and Holder in to handle this.
Oh, THAT cloud. I thought they meant the one that obscures the actual truth and science about climate instead of the faux science. Yeah, good idea. Because when it all goes horribly wrong, it’s better to have an ethnically diverse cadre to haul of to jail.
“There is cloud hanging over climate science, but one Cornell University expert on communication and environmental issues says he knows how to help clear the air.”
Yes 95% of current climate “scientists” should resign or retire! That will clear the air!
“…95% of current climate “scientists” should…”
Shouldn’t that be 97%?
We need to keep a few to kick around – just to remind the others why they are gone.
““Diverse teams are better at solving complex problems, and there’s every reason to believe this is the same, if not more important, when facing climate change,” Schuldt said.”
…and this is demonstrated where, exactly?
My thought exactly. If this statement was true, we could stop worrying about competing with the Japanese, the Chinese and all the other nations that tend towards uniformity.
Enter the logic of the excluded middle. This statement regarding “diversity” assumes that the diversified elements each contribute materially to the solution of the problem. I’m challenged to consider how whites, blacks, and Hispanics differ in their solution of ODE’s, for example, based on whether or not they celebrate Kwanzaa, Cinco de Mayo, or Guy Fawkes day.
Who cares, why would we even consider allowing climatologists to solve the complex “problem” of “climate change”, they should just concern themselves to demonstrating it exists, how it happens and what could be done about it. Sound like some people have ego control issues to me.
It proves that we really are descended from the B Ark. It reminds me of this part where Ford Prefect is berating the B Arkers for not getting to grips with fire.
“Well, you’re obviously being totally naive of course”, said the girl, “When you’ve been in marketing as long as I have, you’ll know that before any new product can be developed it has to be properly researched. We’ve got to find out what people want from fire, how they relate to it, what sort of image it has for them.”
The crowd were tense. They were expecting something wonderful from Ford.
“Stick it up your nose,” he said.
“Which is precisely the sort of thing we need to know,” insisted the girl, “Do people want fire that can be fitted nasally?”
“And the wheel,” said the Captain, “What about this wheel thingy? It sounds a terribly interesting project.”
“Ah,” said the marketing girl, “Well, we’re having a little difficulty there.”
“Difficulty?” exclaimed Ford. “Difficulty? What do you mean, difficulty? It’s the single simplest machine in the entire Universe!”
The marketing girl soured him with a look.
“Alright, Mr. Wiseguy,” she said, “if you’re so clever, you tell us what colour it should be.”
Arrh! It reminds me of a semester of Design Studies that I did a few years into my university days (as I thought about swapping into architecture). We had to work together in a large group of about 15 to create individual pieces that were harmonious. As we had just learnt about using rules to create harmony, I tried desperately to get the conversation back to what uniform rule could we use to get that harmony. The young woman trying to lead the group said something along the lines of “Good idea, Well presented” and then went back to discussing what the theme should be.
I should add that it was a very diverse group with the young-white female leading everyone astray, the rest following her and the not-so-young white male with his head in his hands thinking “FFS!”
Some people want to be leaders (or at least be seen as being leaders) without actually having leadership qualities. I think it’s worse these days, with all the internet-inspired narcissism. “Look at me! I’m popular/caring/smrt/progressive/forward-thinking/compassionate!”
heh, I spotted a racist … how about we worry about content of their character and not the color of their skin or their sex organs … and no, gender and ethnically diverse teams don’t not solve problems better …
Oh. My. Goodness. Insanity in the science community. Mr. Watts, check whatever privileges you might have at the door please.
Rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking Titanic. When you’re out of ideas, what else is there to do. At least they get points for being PC and using a correct buzzword (“diversity”).
I wonder if climate science diversity will prove sustainable…
Killer!
How is this different than Nazi complaints about “Jewish scientists” in the 1930’s?
And here I was hoping for climate science diversity that is a diversity of opinions that would open up climate science to honest debate about data and theories instead of pushing a politically motivated eco-agenda.
Darn.
Climate apartheid?
Blacks study global warming, whites study global cooling, etc.?
And the Zodiac! Only an Aquarius for sea level science and ocean acidification, a Cance for climate change induced diseases, and of course a Scorpion for dealing with the deniers.
And Taurus for their speeches and publications.
excellent!
I got excited when I saw the headline, thinking that diversity of ideas was about to be proposed. But no, diversity of skin color or whatever other flavor of the day we are counting. Not that diversity is bad, it is just that the walls surrounding the climate science establishment appear to be more philosophical than demographic. Perhaps the non-old-white-guys will leap frog the lemmings and discover something more socially, economically or (gasp) scientifically worthwhile to spend their time on. We can only hope.
Maybe we should demand that US climate scientists be the same percentage of conservatives and libertarians as the US population…
Is this effort related to “Nasa Climate Scientist” James Hansen’s pronouncement that NASA has the mission of making the Islamic world “feel better” about themselves?
Now questioning AGW is racist??
That’s gotta be one of the strangest things I’ve ever read…
Give them time. They’ll top it.
Might not seem so strange if you consider that someone likely made a good deal of money for coming up with this new, heretofore unrecognized problem.
Please, don’t challenge them like that.
What’s really needed isn’t ethnic diversity, it’s idea diversity. Until that happens, climate science will remain in a cesspool of dogmatic, UN-driven politics.
They’re just scrambling for a few more percentage points to keep donations coming.
They found out too many minorities don’t buy the CAGW meme.
Thus, What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.
Is that next, prison and whips?
I didn’t read the whole article, but…
He may be spot on, he may have found the holy grail of climate communication, and if we work toward his proposed solution then all of our lives may be deeply enhanced … wait … he’s a white guy … I am now bored and I now assume that he is full of crap … I don’t need to read any more.
(I am curious though … how come 93%of his co-workers (faculty and academic staff, & other staff) can be white and still communicate effectively with the 45% of those in his department grad classes that are non-white?)
The UN will decide that a truly correct and integrated climate scientist must have the appearance of a B52-drink.
This is a desperate gasp by a movement that knows it is becoming irrelevant in the average persons life, as it should be. People have real problems in their lives & don’t have the time to spend on a theory. One that has been pushed down their throats for the last 25 years & that has none of it’s predictions to even remotely come true. People really are not that stupid. I just love to watch people like these quack professors come up with outlandish reasons for their FAILURES. This is a great sign my fellow deniers! This could be the beginning of the fall of the global climate change hysteria.
I agree in part. The important point is that they don’t know it, at least not consciously (“it” being their irrelevancy, even, perhaps, their failure). But this article is a response to it. So this seems like an interesting, even extraordinary example of what some people call “dissociation”.
It’ll never fail as long as they have access to more and more money.
It’s all about the money.
I should have known … academia is so often seen as liberal (like most of the media), so it’s not really surprising to see that they’re so racist too.
I have never seen a bunch of people so involved in racial identity.
In simple terms, most sensible people will look at an idea and wonder if it will work … will it make money … and so on; skin color is irrelevant.
But put the same notion before a liberal, media talking head, academic, etc., and the first concern is about the race or ethnicity of the person presenting the idea. It’s a pity they don’t see people, just skin.
They’ve got more serious problems than communication.
Climate science doesn’t have a diversity problem, it has a truth problem.
Be careful. Communication is indeed a social science. Its not climate science, of course, but it is real. Like any science and technology, it can be used for good or for ill. Ask the Nazis and Saul Alinksy. It is indeed true that if you want your message to be absorbed more effectively by a particular demographic, people need to see themselves in the message, i.e., recognize that people delivering the message are “ike” them. This is related to something called the “recognition heuristic.” Although I’m an engineering PhD, i’ve come to realize that the social sciences might be spooky, but they are often on to something. This guy’s ideas won’t fix the flaws in climate science, but it might build support for fear-mongering in some demographics.
Yes, these people take advantage of scientific observations of communication, persuasion, etc. to serve their political goals – all the while acting as if they are carrying out the most selfless act they could figure out.
You mean John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow at U of Q is NOT a scientist? Damn
It’s the Looanddonkey brigade searching for climate change funding. Classic cràp.
This strategy is possibly informed by the results of the survey in the US that found that educated, white, professional males comprised the largest group of people unconvinced by the climate statistics, emotional marketing and crowd pressure of climate alarmism. Better therefore converting those that are most likely to respond and label those that doubt as sexist, racist or elitist. The means always justify the ends in the minds of such people.
Or should I have said the ends justify the means? Not sure with these grant grubbers.
That’s Grubers not grubbers
You all missed the point. This is about tapping into the billions being spend on climate change research. Our communications and social scientist are feeling left out in the cold with no grant money. They need more diversity on how the billions of climate change grant money should be distributed. Follow the money!
Bingo.
This is what happens when you let racialists run your universities.
We all know that more melanin in your skin makes you think differently than those of us who are melanin challenged.
Is Obama going to tell 5 million new immigrants they have to lower their standard of living.
He’s gonna make them live like they were in Mexico.
He’s already doing it. They haven’t realized it yet.
Watch out! Now that we know climate science is yet another white racist effort Eric Holder will open civil rights investigations if your conclusions don’t match what he wants.
Here is a suggestion for further research. Examine and model the deleterious effects of the publish-or-perish syndrome in the context of academic unions with absolute immunity from reality. Gruber is the latest inspiration.
Every month Nature Climate Change gives us another cracker.
But this isn’t as daft as it sounds. White middle class academics from the Developed World may well be uniform in their assessment of the priorities in fighting climate change.
For example a subsistence farmer from Mali may look at adaptation and poverty reduction with a different perspective.
Or maybe women might want to promote female education as a means of spreading localised knowledge.
Not sure how the LGBTQ thing fits in ye. Perhaps that shows I lack insight through my lack of diversity?
Please, we all know what happens when an academic wanders off the reservation.
Most couldn’t do research if without a wink and a nod to CAGW and CO2.
Basically what the rascist said is this, that all those non-white/non-anglo people out there don’t understand global warming is because they can’t follow the white/anglo science because they don’t understand the white/anglo culture and can’t identify with it and its message, including the message that comes from the white/anglo scientific community.
So here is another excuse to that long list of excues for the warming pause: Non-western based anglo cultures are too stupid to understand advanced western anglo science (aka RACISM).
Give Me A Break!
I thought Donna LaFramboise covered all this in her “Delinquent Teenager” book. The UN implemented diversity quotas producing their IPCC reports. One result was that some of the key work there was done by students in third world countries who happened to have the quota credentials, rather than by seasoned workers with good tools. See the book for names and details.
From one POV, those workers are ideal, because they aren’t experienced enough to question when drek is marching past them, let alone push back. It’s just such an incredible opportunity . . . quite incredible, actually.
Science, apparently, is just another field of human endeavor, all of which are merely “social constructions of reality” (as they say on the Left). Hence there is nothing objective about either the Social or Physical Sciences. In the case of “Climate Science” (unfortunately) they are right for once, in terms of how it is practiced today by the IPCC and team.
97% of climate scientists are middle age white males? We should have thought of this sooner.
Not merely “middle age white males”, but phalocentric, linear-thinking, European descent, middle age, white males.
And probably running dog lackey war mongers of the Wall Street capitalists, as well!
This is hardly the first time it has been noticed. I have noticed a preponderance of English Crown colonialists in the mix, Australians in particular. How many Russians or Saudis are in the short list? The Saudis benefit from oil and the Russians benefit from global warming. Both already have strong state governments and don’t need to exaggerate an emergency as a way to consolidate party power.
What a complete moron. “Diverse teams better at solving problems.” I think, if anything, she refers to people with diverse SKILLS, not diverse skin color or sexual apparatus. I believe this is the most racist statement ever made – skin color determines ability to see clearly.
Well definitely candidate for top ten list.
I guess the knuckleheads never entertained the idea of diversity of thought either.
Diverse sexual apparatus? What exactly is that 😉
Don’t ask. Don’t tell………………………… and don’t look.
H.R. December 8, 2014 at 5:15 pm
Don’t ask. Don’t tell………………………… and don’t look.
Splutter, coffee up nose, keyboard ruined.
Is it cos I is white? h/t Ali G
The key insight needed to understand what Jonathon Schuldt, assistant professor of communication is pushing here.
Imagine if Michael Mann was not a white male.
Were Mann a woman, with the daily jabs we take at his blatant mendacity, the Progressives could label attacks on her as misogynist skeptics.
Were Mann African-American, (like the US President), we would be labeled racists.
Since the Climate Change Alarmists community has a very predominant white male affliction (lack of diversity), the Liberals (or Progressives, or whatever the hell the want to be called) can’t label outside group attacks on it.
My suggestion then would be for Mann to get a gender change operation and change her name to Michelle Womann.
Yikes… that would be one scary looking woman.
Ya know, now that I think about it, Miriam O’Brien looks an awful like Dustin HoffmanN in Tootsie.
http://imabeautygeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Dustin-Hoffman_Tootsie.jpg
http://moreonmiriamobrien.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/cropped-header41.png
joel, I don’t think so. Dustin Hoffman actually looked like a woman for that movie.
Codetech,
I never said Tootsie looked like a woman. I just made a comment on some comparison if Mann went transgender, i.e. add some “diversity” to climate alarmists’ camp. Anyone bashing him-her then would be labeled a “hater” by the Progressives in an attempt to silence climate skeptics or any criticisms of Mann’s climate science deceptions.
The focus on minority input says that the fundamental issue is not about facts, which are colour-blind, but about opinions. Opinions are partially determined by culture and personal experience. These authors are saying that “truth” is either non-determinable or relative.
White, green insiders: I would agree that there is a problem here, but not because the people invovled are white, green or insiders. The problem is that the socio-political-economic agenda is front and center for this WGI group. It wouldn’t matter if the Narrative were written by purple-skinned, anti-environmental fringe nuts if facts and not agenda were driving their conclusions and decisions.
The psychologically oriented have lost track of there being “truths” that we need to find before we make decisions. For them, it is all about a social group weaving about in a search for harmony of spirit. If we are all happy with human sacrifices to the Gods, including (but maybe less so) those sacrificed, and our society weathers troubles through the mechanisms of human sacrifice, then they would say we have achieved perfection. The presence of Gods and the impact sacrifices have on the problems we face, are irrelevant if we all feel good about what we are doing and the future ahead of us.
Really, this is sad. The anti-science establishment is at the top of the heap, except they call themselves the humanists.
Real:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/global/nc/images/large/rtofs_global_temperature_n048_000.png
Yes, seems to be right.
Well at least with this study, the list of things old white guys haven’t been accused of yet gets shorter.
Nothing says science better than racial politics.
Real:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_OND_NH_2014.gif
Congratulations, you found the missing hot spot. Oh, wait…
So er, its only 60% consensus. And Shultz sees salvation in roping the others in, and to make it really effective, make sure the research includes the broken and corrupted social sciences. Communications have been lousy if he’s not aware that psychologists, sociologists, communications experts have been weighing in heavily already. I guess the fact that climate worries come in 39th in a list of woes in a 6 million strong international poll conducted by the IPPC itself. Adding clowns like this has already got a full head of steam and, come to think of it, the start of this was the start of the decline of concern about climate change.
I foresee when the truth is finally out the creation of new, serious, universities that don’t have all this chaff. The social sciences (except economics because it is a difficult subject) have been where students aspiring to something more challenging went to when they failed at the real sciences.
Ah, Ithaca, NY. Beautiful Finger Lakes and gorges, not far from my neck of the woods.
Ithaca=> 10 square miles of progressive hive mind, surrounded by reality. ;0
Sadly so. A few years back a self-assured Al Gore pretender (a professor) gave a small seminar at Cornell on party-line CAGW that was predictable, highly uninformed, and foolishly presented. Happily, probably half the attendees already knew better and must have disappointed the presenter with their skeptical faces. After the show, a couple of professors were heard (by me) talking with derision about how some folks even analyzing climate using sunspot numbers. Clearly they could have been referring to tea-leaves or chicken-entrails with like disdain. So – no big deal? Actually, the leader of this snide discussion was a person who had a research interest in (ready?) ionospheric physics. One can be an “expert” and not have thought about what anything really MEANS.
Beautiful indeed. I’ve visited Watkins Glen (the little canyon, not the town by the same name), and tried to learn water skiing on Canandaigua. The water ski attempt was unsuccessful. I’ve also boated on the Erie Canal between Newark and Fairport.
On a certain level, I think the author of this study is correct. I’ve noticed the preponderance of white faces in various climate protests, photo ops, etc. Usually mid- to upper-class people who happily use all of the fruits of an advanced, energy consuming society: cars, planes, heated homes, computerized technology, modern clothing, instantaneous communication, etc. Someone above my pay-grade can probably explain why people of color don’t seem to be as easily duped by the CAGW game.
“Someone above my pay-grade can probably explain why people of color don’t seem to be as easily duped by the CAGW game.”
Buyer beware is a lesson learned early in Latin America. Most of the dupe-ees seem to be the New Englander types sporting iPhones and iPads and sitting in at various block parties (Occupy Wall Street comes to mind; same faces seem to be at the various Climate Marches).
I doubt they are duped. It’s just a party.
I smell Cultural Marxism.
Let Merit be the Measure of a person, not skin colour.
When governments mandate quota’s on ethnic diversity in any field of endeavor, they’re admitting that on merit alone, some folks don’t make the grade – that’s every ethnic group by the way.
Communism invented AVERAGE – and has been trying to reduce humanity to the status of indentured peasantry ever since.
Free enterprise invented the MEDIAN – and has been trying to raise it in every field for every ethnic group since the year dot.
Populist as it may be, the U.N did not land men on the Moon, split the Atom or perfect the flushing toilet.
When a team made up of one of every kind of Human finally creates something useful, maybe i’ll cheer diversity – I give it a glacial epoch….
I had to crack a window to clear out the air as soon as I clicked on the link. My “Marxist Jargonese” translator just had a kernel panic, and it was designed specifically to be able to process documents with a large number of examples of the categorical discontinuities that characterize Marxist World-View v. 2.0.
“Diverse teams are better at solving complex problems, and there’s every reason to believe this is the same, if not more important, when facing climate change,” Schuldt said.
No. Good teams are better at solving complex problems. Diversity should be ensuring a team is not made up solely of academics and instead made up of those with different thinking backgrounds or diverse disciplines.
You don’t find the Miss Universe Pageant useful?
Sorry, that was @ zenrebok
I think you’ll find that it should be called Mizz Kozmos, feature Men, Wimmin, Shemalez, He-Sheeze, LGBT’s and the undecided.
Winners are decided by simply attending.
Gold star and a Tiara just for showing up.
As for creating something useful…methane?, not good a place to be a mouth breather!
Actually, we do not need any more “outreach” on climate. We need people who actually know stuff to say it as best they can. The exotic tool for this purpose is called English. (The opposite of English is “communication”.)
However, people can’t know much about climate because the bulk of this planet – wet, dry, or mushy – is unvisited. And that’s just what’s on this side of the atmosphere.
So they should just shut up till they actually know something, right?
How about we just fire enough of them to get the racial ratio “right”? Would fix their ‘diversity’ problem and save a load of money… 1/2 /sarc;…
Best suggestion yet and so simple.
Plus saving huge amounts of tax payers hard earned plus letting the poor old abused, misused, misquoted, mis-understood very old but still very vigorous Global Climate finally just get on with what it has always done without the arrogant, ignorant, interfering busy bodies of a self selected section of the Homo sapiens species trying to tell it what it should or should not be doing.
And then they get very upset and abusive when Old Climate goes off and does something different which a lot of other sections of the Homo sapiens species says quite rightly, is a fundamental right of Old Climate to do so if it wishes and we should keep our interfering busy body noses right out of Old Climate’s affairs..
Could they be retrained as phone sanitizers?
Unless I am very much mistaken, a significant amount of climate research effort already takes place in countries other than the USA, for example China, Japan, India… How much “diversity” (and there is no doubt they are seeking skin-colour “diversity”) would be acceptable, I wonder? Maybe this is just a chancer move to attract funding from the Political Correctitude lobby in case Big Climate funding dries up? In essence, this is a thoroughly roguish and insulting piece of rubbish work, to be treated with the utmost contempt.
There’s plenty of climate Diversity on the “warmist” side. Since someone left the door of the asylum open every type of diverse climate activist nutter has come through to get funding from the taxpayer.
What climate science needs is science not more propaganda.
What climate science needs is …
.. an enema.
Or special fronds.
Most great ideas come from a single person whether or not there is a committee of other people around ready to grab credit for it.
I would say ALL great ideas come from a single person. Well often a single person in different places at the same time.
Show me a patent, with more than one claimed inventor, and I will show you how to attack its validity on the basis of fraudulent authorship claims. You have to be the SOLE thinkerupperer of at least one claimed element, of at least one allowed claim, in order to be considered an inventor. (of said invention)
Being the manager of the group doesn’t qualify you to be an inventor.
But kids today are only taught as members of a focus group, in which one kid does all the thinking, and the others copy his/er work and get the same grade.
It’s good for their self esteem, to sit with a smart kid at school, and copy her/is work.
“An Asian man, a black woman, a white transsexual, a Christian and a Muslim walk into a climate conference….. “. Someone else can complete this joke for me.
“…and they ask, “where are all the white male scientists at?”
The white male scientists, unable to properly relate to the Asian man, a black woman, a white transsexual, a Christian and a Muslim, simply point to each other and say, with 97% certainty, “there’s one.”
“…and due to an event oragniser clerical error, they all end up sitting at separate tables.”
event ORGANIZER clerical error – damn post modern Anglesh…
Eye nu exctly whut ewe ment.
“Where’s my diversity-based gubment grant?”
A Black guy, a Marxist, and a Muslim walk into a bar…
the bartender says…
The Climate is completely color blind.
But I guess our communication expert above is not quite smart enough to notice that as he probably spends most of his time in front of a mirror telling his reflection how smart he is.
Interestingly it is the climate communication experts who seem to be racially prejudiced against those of their own pale skin colour.
However as is always the case when climate science or something that possibly resembles science thinks it is associated with climate science, like fleas are associated with dogs, it is ALWAYS some other party who “has to do something”.
It is never the climate science proposer / accuser who actually ever gets around to actually “doing something.”!
We see this again here with this above example.
Climate communication experts are a new and recent breed of potential and trending Lewendowskys who have ALL the answers as to why those deniers and climate apostates out there fail to believe what they themselves firmly believe,
Or at least what they presume to believe while lots of tax payers hard earned moola keeps flowing their way to bolster their beliefs.
No doubt they will prove to be quite flexible about their beliefs if the grants criteria change in the future.
Possibly someone who is a “communication and environmental” expert should expand his background by studying real sciences like physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, heat transfer and fluid mechanics.
this is “university diversity”, all ethnic groups strongly encouraged, but not diversity of opinion.
The large and diverse array of Asians (Koreans, Thais, Chinese, Malaysians, etc) in STEM are basically not “diversity”, and are virtually “white males”.
I exaggerate, but that’s the way they lean.
And their view seems to ignore the scientists of other ethnic groups in other countries, like China, Brazil, India and Uganda (not a huge cohort, but not totally absent either.)
It seems to me, when you force “diversity,” what you get is faux diversity. A thin veneer.
Appearances (like sound bites and headlines) are all that count with some people.
+1
How embarrassing, from my Alma Mater. Then again, Bill Nye is embarrassing too. And Bill Maher, but he’s a comedian on purpose.
If Bill Maher is a comedian, then I am a concert pianist.
Don’t comedians have to be funny; not just loud mouthed and crude ??
Okay – before someone else says it outright: Bill Nye graduated from Cornell. Worse – he was graduated from the engineering school (an ME). His bona fides claim to fame (Wikipedia) is apparently that he took one class from Carl Sagan.
Apparently he did learn from Sagan that once you are seen as an EXPERT, you can never fail to give SOME answer to ANY question. BOTH of them could have better learned from Mark Twain who said:
“I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn’t know.”
The absurdity of the lead post confirms that the crucial intellectual debate is on the two opposing views in philosophy about the philosophy of science.
The science views shown in the lead post are the same as climate focused science views used by the IPCC’s main assessment process and both are a false view of science that is called socially subjective science; a subjective science that starts with social goals then sees only data or makes up only data that fits the social goals. It offers no knowledge of reality that exists independent of man’s consciousness.
The cause of that kind of false view of climate focused science is not any political orientation or any social orientation. The cause of that false view of science is an irrational basis for the premises that allow belief in dual reality and consequentially belief in dual kinds of knowledge.
John
and:
diversity is built by steady infiltration + segregation.
once energy and material supply for that process weakens there’s a new landscape, marked by
borders, frontiers.
strategic arranged armies.
confrontation before integration.
glad when told better – Hans
johann wundersamer,
. . . & . . .
Original research has the seeds of intellectual diversity. I don’t care if it is done by zombies or Vulcans or Wookies.
John
Here’s a concept … try diversity of opinion. You know, have real debates about different theories which can be tested, falsified and discarded by observational evidence. Race really does not matter. It is diversity of thought that climate science (in fact all science) desperately needs.
They are pushing indoctrination dressed up as intellectual honesty.
Oh sure! It’s got nothing to do with bad science and fraud for political ends, let’s just blame race for the bad perception of Climate science that’s going round!
When I first read the post title I thought, “This is good. Get back to the science. Discard the hype.”
Then I read the story.
Martin Luther King said something about looking forward to the day when people would be judged on the quality of their character rather than the color of their skin.
It would seem that those who insert quotas…er…diversity into everything (now even climate science) never got the message.
The real missing ‘monitory’ from climate ‘science’ is good and honest scientists has opposed to charlatans and BS artists that make up most of those working in the area . Colour and gender can come after that most important step,
I think this may be just the approach the world needs. Try this:
Many of you I’m sure have read articles about Energy Poverty and The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. If not, please do so. These well-thought out, and I think accurate, themes point out the disproportionate adverse impacts to poor people, especially people of color in third world countries, caused by the current political clamor to restrict conventional energy sources in favor of expensive and unproven alternative and other CO2 reducing energy sources.
By raising the cost and limiting the availability of energy, poor people get whipsawed two ways: one, they must spend a ever-larger portion of their meager income just to pay their energy bills, reducing their ability to afford medicines, clean water, food, and etc.; second, the greatly increased cost of energy, not to mention the huge waste of money to try and fund such uneconomic “solutions” (to a problem that doesn’t exist), depresses the wealth of the entire world. This makes it more difficult for society to find funding to invent or develop new products, medicines, electrical grids that can bring power to backwater villages, improved housing and transportation systems, sewage systems to clean up polluted water sources, and so forth.
Humans have been trying to effectively utilize wind and solar power for many thousands of years, with limited success. It’s no accident that the development of cheap, widely available, and dependable fossil energy systems, beginning about 150 years ago, has lifted billions out of grinding poverty and extended average life expectancies from the 40’s into the 70’s. It’s been the most significant positive achievement in the history of mankind. The warmist frenzy will inevitably turn back that progress and lead to the premature death of millions or even billions of people. We will all be poorer, but if you are already desperately poor, you have no room to maneuver. You will be working longer and harder just to subsist, and many will not succeed. It would truly be a death sentence.
These are the true concerns of poor people, and perhaps their unwillingness to buy into the warmist scaremonger scenario reflects their ability to sense the truth of the matter.
True, but never underestimate the power of money and/or free stuff to get people to “see the light”.
Oh, my … Poor ol’ Pachauri is simply going to have to swallow his pride – if not eat his very own words.
You see, back in the good ‘ol days, during the course of articulating his (July 2009) “vision” for AR5 – when, no doubt, there wasn’t a communication cloud in sight – Pachauri had confidently declared (inter alia):
Amazing, eh?!
“Diverse teams are better at solving complex problems, and there’s every reason to believe this is the same, if not more important, when facing climate change,” Schuldt said.
Is there any evidence that diverse teams are better at solving complex problems? Or is that an axiom that we just have to accept as self-evident? It has been my experience that “too many cooks spoil the broth,” unless they have similar goals, similar backgrounds, and get along well together. When you have individuals come into a project with chips on their shoulders or mistrust of fellow team members, they end up fighting over work assignments, who gets scarce resources, and who gets the credit. Very little gets done.
What exactly is “science of climate diversity” anyway? What does climate science have to do with skin color or ethnic background? Is Jonathon Schuldt one of those conspiracy theorists who believe that Hurricane Katrina intentionally went after minorities in New Orleans?
“What it implies to minority individuals is that their unique perspectives and experiences don’t matter.”
I suspect what it implies to minorities is that white scientists don’t matter.
To those who genuinely want to understand what explains all planetary temperatures in their tropospheres and any surface:
Firstly, you need to understand how and why gravity forms a density gradient. Why don’t molecules keep on falling? The answer lies in the Second Law of Thermodynamics which tells us that thermodynamic equilibrium will evolve. When such equilibrium evolves it has maximum entropy, and that means there are no unbalanced energy potentials and so no further net movement of energy or matter across any internal boundary in, for example, a column of air.
This happens when molecules tend towards having the same kinetic energy when they collide. This is why temperatures even out in a horizontal plane where gravitational potential energy is the same for all. However, in a vertical plane molecules with downward components in their velocity gain kinetic energy between collisions. But when they next collide they must have the same kinetic energy as the one they collide with at a lower level.
So this state of thermodynamic equilibrium also has a temperature gradient because molecules at lower levels have greater kinetic energy in order to maintain the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
You should never confuse this state with an isothermal state which evolves only in a horizontal plane. Likewise, the corollary of the Second Law that heat transfer is always from hot to cold also applies only in a horizontal plane.
This is a critical point, because when new thermal energy is absorbed at the top of a planet’s troposphere it will disrupt a former state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Gravity then attempts to restore that equilibrium by, in effect, dragging more molecules downwards and actually causing heat transfer from cooler to warmer regions below, and eventually into the surface.
This then is the extra energy which James Hansen thought had to be explained by back radiation. It is very obvious on Venus that such extra energy is required to warm its surface (by about 5 degrees) during its sunlit hours, but it also happens some of the time on Earth, because solar radiation does not fully explain our mean surface temperatures either.
Nice, but a short essay on physics. You should give longer physics-based explanation in future posts.
Venus or Mars are interesting study cases. But of course our Earth has had 4+ billion years to continuously respond to, and find, a (liquid) water equilibria as opposed to Mars (frozen) and Venus (vapor) equilibria points.
I agree my comment above is a bit laconic. But those who read it carefully (and who understand thermodynamic equilibrium, entropy and energy potentials) should be able to understand and fill in any gaps, such as temperature being proportional to mean molecular kinetic energy. The assumptions of Kinetic Theory are also required, and these are clearly set out even in Wikipedia where you can note the last assumption in particular. It is critical to understand what must happen at the molecular level.
What I am talking about applies in any planetary troposphere regardless of the gases or vapors present. I am not talking about “equilibria points” whatever you mean by that, and whatever types of equilibrium you are talking about. I am talking about the (singular) state of thermodynamic equilibrium in a troposphere. However, radiation (due to radiating molecules) has a temperature-levelling effect which reduces the gravity-induced temperature gradient by varying amounts on different planets, but rarely more than about a third, as happens mostly due to water vapor on Earth. The overall state of thermodynamic equilibrium has an environmental temperature gradient. Such temperature gradients are not only caused by solar radiation heating a planet’s surface and resulting in warm air (or gas) rising and cooling. Because the gradient forms at the molecular level it occurs even at the base of a planetary troposphere that lacks a surface and even lacks direct solar radiation. Above all, you need to understand why and how the heat transfer (in the last two paragraphs) occurs and the significance of such. I’ll leave you and other readers to think about it all, because that is the most satisfying way for you all to come to a realisation that this is in fact what happens.
Well, I’m curious how he knows what part of that I didn’t understand before when I now have to. Confusing, indeed.
Will clearing the ‘cloud hanging over climate science’ warm or cool the planet?
Reblogged this on JunkScience.com and commented:
Never underestimate the power or human stupidity. Robert A. Heinlein.
Bob Greene,
Heinlein had some keepers . . . .
John
In reply to John Whitman’s mention of Heinlein:
Grok!
Michael 2,
If one wants to feel like a ‘stranger in a strange land’ just be a critical reviewer of the observationally unsupported theory of substantial climate change by CO2 from fossil fuels.
It is hard to ‘Grok’ in that situation.
John
A typical liberal reaction to the rejection of their utopian fantasies; the messaging needs to be changed.
Forget maybe trying to develop facts or useful models, just form your lies with different words so as to resonate with particular “communities” because they must not have understood what you were trying to sell them the first time through. (and we all know the reason why they didn’t understand don’t we? wink wink nudge nudge)
The understated racism is soooo ironic.
When I read the title of this post I thought it was going to be about including a wider range of views on climate change which of course would include the skeptical side. Ha, ha…. I was quickly disavowed of that notion. Just another lefty who invents problems where none exist, blames it on racism/lack of diversity and thinks that diversity will solve it.
Two white guys. They could help the cause by resigning their positions and handing them over to two members of the diversity community.
Yes, it’s just like the zero population gang, who say people should eliminate themselves to ‘save the planet’. But I notice no one voluteers to lead the way.
The white guys aren’t gonna step aside, either. ‘Do as I say, not as I do’ is their motto.
Fen’s Law:
The Left doesn’t believe in any of the things they lecture us about.
No exceptions found so far.
An academic who wants to create a “science” about how to create circular arguments about a circular argument…?
Where is the science when you start out assuming your hypothesis is absolutely proven, and you just go on from there? I mean, yes, even Euclid had to start with givens and axioms—but he then rigorously proved his theorms, using his axioms and givens.
Warmists haven’t established the givens, or the axioms, and now they’re even going to skip the proofs?
How do you even have an intelligent conversation with these people when they continue to prove they occupy a separate reality? I’ve had conversations with folks on mind-altering substances which who made more sense. This is like some kind of full-blown psychosis—
Maybe Jack Finney wasn’t writing fiction! I’m going to check under my bed for giant pods before going to sleep…
which, who, what… SOMEbody made some sense! More than the author of that article… Gah! (No, I wasn’t the one on the mind-altering substances…honest!)
So, these new age correction of communications experts have no idea of climate chaos but do a fine job of creating total chaos without even knowing they have done so world wide total.
Ah, yes… The left’s deplorable soft racism of diminished expectations rears its ugly head, even in the corridors of Climate science…
Martin Luther King fought and died for a society where all men would be judged on their content of character, not on the color of their skin… He championed for equal treatment of all races, not special treatment afforded to a select minority.
As long as the soft bigotry of racial discrimination laws, quotas and affirmative action exists, racism will continue to fester in the body politic.
The irony is that a black president has managed to set race relations back 30 years, when he had the golden opportunity to move it forward 30 years…
Oh, the irony of the left.
I think I just read the problem is a glass ceiling and not broken models. There is obviously a vast reservoir of stupid out there that the IPCC and their minions have tapped.
” …..Among the most destructive ideas that needs to be abandoned, Schuldt said, is that communication around climate science should be “color blind.”
“Color-blind communications are, paradoxically, ineffective,” Schuldt said. “What it implies to minority individuals is that their unique perspectives and experiences don’t matter.”…”
One of the most anti-science comments I have seen for some time.
I read it twice. Did I read what I think I read!!!? Is he suggesting we try socially engineering geeks? Didn’t work when they were kids what makes him think it will work now.
The only advice I would give this guy after the shock of reading this wears off is ” You need to pour a stiff drink and get laid”.
Pierre DM
December 8, 2014 at 6:57 pm
“I read it twice. Did I read what I think I read!!!? Is he suggesting we try socially engineering geeks? Didn’t work when they were kids what makes him think it will work now. ”
I see you haven’t been to Slashdot the last decade.
lots of news from multiethnic, multicultural sites with various concurring rel.beliefs last times.
endemic diseases, warlike outbreaks, oeconomic malfunctions – least to say.
mere less to seek for.
The authors are completely wrong … the IPCC has wide inclusion, on purpose, to allow political policy to be dominated by a few whiteboy scientivists.
offering banalities. reality is grounded on banalities.
lies are fantastic. Hans
Yup. We need to hear from those folks on the other side of the Bell Curve.
The long-range goal, Schuldt and Pearson state, needs to be the creation of a new science of climate diversity.
‘Science’ and ‘climate diversity’ don’t belong in the same sentence. It’s the ultimate oxymoron. The only ‘needs’ are their needs for new grants.
For that matter, ‘climate’ and ‘diversity’ have no business being in the same sentence together, when diversity refers to tribes like it does here.
Isn’t it possible that those minorities this assisrant professor is thinking about are just too clever to allow themselves getting drawn into the squabbles of the “settled climate science”??? At least they can say that they haven’t been bought by the IPCC fool’s gold.
The only thing needed to clear the “cloud” is honest science and scientific methodology devoid of advocacy.
Climate “science” seeks to prove a concept.
The true science – by way of the planets actual data rather than ridiculous fantasy predictions – is now demonstrating just how devoid of a moral compass the alarmist advocates are.
Re: TheLastDemocrat says “A Black guy, a Marxist, and a Muslim walk into a bar…
the bartender says…”
The bartender says “ouch I bet that hurt no matter what your colour, politics or religion – but I’m glad it wasn’t a member of the green party who walked into that low iron bar fell over and left sooty footprints on my wall like you three – otherwise they would accuse me of having a low bar causing a high carbon footprint”.
In my field, diversity used to mean you could code in both C# and Java. Programming is programming. Science is science. Facts is facts, as they say, and it doesn’t matter who does it or what they race, color, religion or creed is.
But the problem being addressed here isn’t diversity per se, it’s the fact that the message isn’t being picked up by more non-white non-males. Get more XXX people involved and more people of group XXX will get on the climate hysteria band-wagon and clamor for change is the goal. That, and spreading the wealth around — why should all the government grants only go to white men?
maybe the overwhelming whiteness of the “scientists” has raised the albedo of the field, and thus caused the pause in global warming?
(hey, that makes as much sense as the BS in the quoted article %-)
What about the lesbians and gays? Or the sado-masochists?
We cant be leaving them out when it comes to feeling hot and bothered.
Or Miriam O’Brian either, for that matter.
John Whitman –
‘Original research has the
seeds of intellectual
diversity. I don’t care etc.’
sophists are sporting intellectual diversity. too.
what about intellectual independence.
and aimless curiosity.
Best regards – Hans
johann wundersamer,
. . . & . . .
. . . . so let the diversity of climate focused intellects set a dialog that makes all past science debate pale in comparison to it . . . . and again, I do not care if the intellectuals are zombies or Vulcans or Wookies . . . .
John
John Whitman
‘and again, I do not care if the
intellectuals are zombies or
Vulcans or Wookies . . . .’
___
or internet search algorythms
or ‘modelled scientists’ running on supercomputers.
___
whats the hack? Your
‘. . . . let the diversity of
climate focused intellects
set a dialog that makes all
past science debate pale in
comparison to it’
is thumbs up!
brg Hans
johann wundersamer,
. . . and thumbs up to you, too.
It just took a while for me to get familiar with your sense of prose and style . . . looking good . . .
brg, John
Now I know our survival up to now has been all luck
Good thing that Al and the climastrologists came along, or we’d be sunk (in rising hot acid oceans).
That’s my next band name! Al & The Climastrologists…
This is a cirrus matter.
Some thoughts:
Why do people prefer white, fluffy clouds to dark storm clouds?
Who named some clouds “mare’s tails”? (Probably a sexist white stallion.)
And speaking of sexist climate terms, why not “themicanes” instead of “herricanes”?
It’s not their fault pink clouds are pink. They were just made that way.
Who can say if a red sky is good or bad? It depends on when you look at it.
Why do different fronts have to raise such a ruckus when they meet? Why can’t they all just get along?
What does the rain in Spain have against the plains?
I won’t get into how ethnically troubling it is that we call them “El Nino” and “La Nina”.
I think Schuldt and Pearson’s point is that climate scientist need to look at clouds from both sides now, from up and down and realize, somehow, that it’s cloud’s illusions they recall. The models really don’t know clouds at all.
Does PeTA know what the rain does with dogs and cats?
You forgot to discuss “anvil heads”…
okay, bad joke.
Sorry.
Maybe I didn’t get their point after all since I wasn’t all occludsive.
Confused by the stated belief that the cloud hanging over climate science is its sociological diversity?
Don’t be. It is not politics, not even culture, and certainly not science that determines the long-term fate of a society. It is the dominant philosophy. All you need to know about so-called climate science or this “communications science” is that both are postmodern sciences.
Postmodernism is the dominant philosophy in academia today. In Europe it is dominant in the universities including in all the humanities and “soft” sciences, and even in the philosophy departments. In the Anglo-American world postmodernism is also dominant in the humanities and soft sciences but not yet quite dominant in the philosophy departments. But it’s getting there.
And what does postmodernism tell us, at root? That reality is socially constructed. That’s why these people can actually think (without stating it so baldly) that if enough people believe a given narrative about the world, that narrative becomes true about the world. Postmodernists believe there is finally a good narrative that is diverse and green. But the patriarchy wants to prevent that narrative from becoming dominant, you see. And that is why you see the manic hyping of “consensus” and the bizarre hatred of AGW “deniers” as such a prominent feature in so-called climate science.
They really do believe that if no one dissents, the world will be the dream-world they socially construct. But of course there must be no ethnic or racial hold-outs from the hive-mind.
Well postmodernism is the same as Hollywood, and has exactly the same roots. It is enough to delude the feeble minded and that is what it has been created for.
” Postmodernists believe there is finally a good narrative that is diverse and green. ”
No. Postmodernists believe that might is right.
RalphB,
I concur with most of your analysis. I think it is, though, only the metaphysics and epistemology areas of any given philosophy that essentially determines the whole remainder of a philosophy. The metaphysical and epistemological areas of ‘postmodern philosophy’ are an inane irrational playground used as a basis to create social phantasies.
John
Reminds me of the old adage: When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Ralph B,
Good post. The problem with postmodernists is this: if their narrative conflicts with reality, eventually reality will smack them down.
If the current social construct is that love conquers all, including bad human nature, and thus we do not need guns because the “good narrative” is enough, then the ones left with the guns will call all the shots.
The postmoderrnists will hate what happens next. But that’s what happens when you go against reality. Those whose narrative is to demonize carbon will run up against the same hard reality. China doesn’t give a damn if the West drastically reduces CO2. In fact, China will love that. They will just pick up what’s left, and get rich in the process.
+2
“Color-blind communications are, paradoxically, ineffective. What it implies to minority individuals is that their unique perspectives and experiences don’t matter.”
+++++++++++++
This is in fact racism exposed. Liberals only see people in terms of race, thereby putting down all races not deemed in favor by those racist liberals.
They are not liberals, they are leftists. They don’t believe in liberty. Stop spreading their lies.
+1
A face lift through an equal opportunities program is hardly a substitute for a more convincing scientific argument.
FFS…
small wonder:
CO2 spoken is –
see, owe too
– votes + fundings –
leluja.
Translation: for “climate communication” read “warmist propaganda.” This article is one of many that has found a new idea of how to dope his readership (if any).
So rather than stop lying to people and trying to sell fear as science, this pinhead thinks “diversity” is the answer? Let the giant FAIL! continue. I guess it is difficult to understand that people know you’re lying to them when you live in an echo chamber.
overcome a crippling lack of ethnic ….
OOPS read that wrong, the eyes saw ethnic, but the brain registered ” a crippling lack of ethics” then my mind had a random access thought to Peter H. Gleick. After getting the URL to the Peter H. Gleick article, I saw that his brother is James Gleick, whom I had often wished would write a book on climate change due to his demonstrated ability to cut through all the malarchy surrounding complicated scienfic topics; so consider my mind officially blown!
next up: We need mathematics to supply necessary carbohydrates!
T.White,
appreciate this blog.
communicating with thinking people!
ain’t no cop.
although we have to cope with.
ain’t no expert. but its our real lives thats worth to interrest in.
Thanks for reading Twice.
Hans
The diversity vultures are now picking at the CAGW carcass. I hope they are hungry.