Course code: Denial101x, April 2015

This particular falacy comes under "Misrepresentation" because it claims "profits" are not associated with "more money:"

All we have to do is ask Mr. Google for how Charles Koch gets his profits:

Koch Industries, Inc. /ˈkoʊk/ is an American multinational corporation based in Wichita, Kansas, United States, with subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading, and investments. Koch also owns Invista, Georgia-Pacific, Molex, Flint Hills Resources, Koch Pipeline, Koch Fertilizer, Koch Minerals, and Matador Cattle Company. Koch companies are involved in core industries such as the manufacturing, refining, and distribution[1] of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, ranching,[3] finance,[citation needed] commodities trading, and other ventures and investments. The firm employs 50,000 people in the United States and another 20,000 in 59 other countries.[4]


In 2013, Forbes called it the second largest privately held company in the United States (after Cargill), with an annual revenue of $115 billion,[5][6][7] down from the largest in 2006. If Koch Industries were a public company in 2013, it would have ranked 17 in the Fortune 500.[8]


Fred C. Koch, after whom Koch Industries, Inc. is named, co-founded the company in 1940 and developed an innovative crude oil refining process.[9] His sons, Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer, and David H. Koch, executive vice president, are principal owners of the company after they bought out their brothers, Frederick and William "Bill" Koch, for $1.1 billion in 1983.[10] Charles and David H. Koch each own 42% of Koch Industries. Charles has stated that the company would go public "over my dead body".[5]​

Koch is making a lot of profit, a huge profit, by selling fossil fuels. Someone has to be funding the anti-climate change professionals to fool the others into wasting their time denying climate change is CO{2} based. Even paranoids have enemies. <GRINS>

Bob Wilson

 

In Denial 101x, we start with "5 Characteristics of Science Denial" because this what happens when a group of people attack scientists, those who think empirically. John1701a did a similar analysis of hybrid skeptics. So one of the first steps is to come up with terms that accurately describe the phenomena. But it sounds like you don't see it:

The usual reason for looking at the paleo-record is to identify climate forcing events. For example, a volcano, a period of solar minimum, or some orbital mechanics. Establish a basis for "2000 BC" and we'll have some confidence this was not just a "red herring" tossed out.

There is an excellent thread discussing the Paleo-record here: PAGES 2k Paleoclimate Network | PriusChat

You probably want to start with this post in the thread: PAGES 2k Paleoclimate Network | PriusChat . Your choice.

Instead of relying on your "belief", try empiricism by bringing facts and data. One of the things addressed early in Denial 101x is we're open to an alternate explanation that has the same characteristics as the ~1 C increase in global temperatures seen in the last 150 years. So far such claims have yet to 'hold water.'

No problem. I first came to PriusChat because I was curious about the Prius. But having 'green' thrown in my face by hybrid-skeptics has raised my interest. Denial 101x provides insights and tools to address these claims.

You might try the course as anyone can audit the course with 2-4 hours each week over the 7 weeks . . . if you have the time.

Bob Wilson

 

Class notes Week 5:

• 2 * CO{2} alone -> 1.2C (2.2F) increase
• " with amplifiers -> 1.5 -> 4.5C
• Approaches: Paleo / Climate Models / Simple models + current data
  • Paleo records are not today's earth
  • Climate models may omit hard to quantify elements (i.e., permafrost CH{4} release)
  • Simple models + current data may not project to longer time lines
• CO{2} ~= 0.04% of the air
• Water vapor amplifies global warming since it is a greenhouse gas and increases with GW
  
• +1C from CO{2} => +1C from water (dependent on CO{2}, not independent!)
  
• CO{2} triggers water and are both amplifying
• lower clouds in daylight over oceans, high albedo (reflection) a cooling
• high clouds, lower albedo but more greenhouse heat trapping
• 10-15 years of observations over the ocean
  • mixed results, neither positive nor negative for limited data
• Paleo records suggests the large temperature variations were not moderated by clouds
• Both suggest clouds won't counter act GW
• Climate models indicate clouds are an amplifier of GW
• Methane clathrate, +500m ... hummm, solid at 39F (?) under pressure
  
• < 1% would double the earths methane
• 1,000s of years for heat to reach them
• in the sea, it absorbs O{2} (the Gulf 'dead zone'??)
• Siberian shelf is shallow and showing evidence of methane release (Russian Arctic side of Bering Sea)
  • We don't know sources and no historical records
• No evidence of catastrophic clathrate release
• Climate models suggest more aridity even though the water cycle is faster
  • evaporation increases faster than rain fall increase
• CO{2} remains for centuries vs water vapor lasting a week
• Ice feedback is << water vapor
• Models suggest increasing troposphere thickness leads to higher clouds and more cloud warming
• Contrails vs 9/11 and cooling over USA?
• Edge of the tropics has been moving outward for past 30 years
  • Models do not address this, looking at clouds
• Rain changes are faster than models predict
• Natural selection
• 5 mass extinctions
  • mostly volcanic: initial cooling from dust followed by heating from CO{2}
• 1st 445 m years, 86% went extinct, Ordovician Period
  • ice age -> volcanic -> 1 m years warm period
• 2nd 360 m years, 75%, Devonian
• 3d 250 m years, 85% "the Great Dying"
  • massive volcanism > sulfur ash -> global cooling and acid rain
  • later, the CO{2} cause global warming, methane from oceans possible
• 4th 200 m years, 80%, Triassic
  • large volcanic eruptions
• 5th 65 m years, 76%, Cretaceous
  • volcanic and meteor
• 6th extinction (?)
  • normal ~40 species/year
  • past 1,000 years, 25 times as large (1,000 species/year)
  • past 500 years, same as past extinction events
• current rates of fossil fuel increasing >> than volcanism
• risk is biodiversity (every critter is a bunny, every plant a danilion)
• mass die-offs in fruit bats at ~42C
• as climate change occurs, the early threatened boundary is where the species first disappears
• flower - pollinator synch
• divergent ice regions, shore ice disappears first
  
• convergent ice regions
• archipelago ice
• Western Hudson Bay seasonal ice, -22% polar bears in 30 years
• Beaufort Sea, divergent ice, -40% in six years
  • 1600 in 2004 -> 900 in 2010
  • 2 of 80 cubs survives versus normal 50% survival
• Polar bear hunting has been replaced by loss of sea ice for bear hunting seals
• 70% is ocean, $20 T/year
• coral < 0.1% yet generate $29.8 B of global benefits for 850 m people
  
• ~30% of human CO{2} absorbed by oceans
  • lower pH
  • lower carbonate ions for skeletons and shells
• 10,000 years to reverse as requires erosion of alkali materials from land
  • 300 generations of humans impacted
• 0.1 pH decrease which is 26% decrease in carbonate ions
• rate of pH change is faster than in the past 65 m years, possibly 300 m years
• 5th extinction impacted corals for 10 million years, 40 times longer than human existence
• oceans at 8.1 pH (alkaline)
• oceans threatened by temperature and chemical effects
• Barrier reef coral has dropped by about 1/2 since 1980s
• current rates match expected mass extinction rates
• at 1.5C, more water stress from: droughts, heat waves, and floods (aka., Texas!)
• at 2C, coastal flooding, coral reef loss, 1 m by 2100, 30% extinction
• 3-4 C, corals are toast, 40-70% extinction path

Taking a break.

• 2007 is a pollutant, Supreme Court
• hotter air holds more water so when it rains, it pours
• plants are sensitive to extremely hot days
• northern migration of pests seen
• "Years of Living Dangerously", movie?
• 1 m sea level rise displaces ~200 m people
• glaciers are a water resevoir (aka., California snow pack)
• Peru
  • 34 million people, 50% living mostly living in deserts
  • 76% electricity from hydro power
• Tibet and another glacier based society
• 2003 heat wave in Europe, 35-50,000 excess deaths
• Expansion of malaria mosquetoes
  
• costs go up faster than the temperature increase
• (Lycinkoism by the deniers)
• Are weather events being affected by climate change?
  • 385 (95%) - yes
  • 4 (1%) - no
  • 16 (4%) - not sure
• More rain and snow in areas that are cold enough
• Wetter areas get wetter and dryer areas dryer
• 5-20% projected increase in floods
• Study reports heat-waves are 4x more likely
• weather "weirdness" without backup
• nights warming faster than days is a signature of man-made GW
  • heat can not escape at night
• tool: Scorcher
  • shows Aussi temperature data for past three months

Taking a break before summary and test.

Bob Wilson

 

The final assignment:

Debunking and Peer Assessment Length: 300-500 words
Response Due: 8 June 2015 at 06:00am UTC
Peer Responses Due: 15 June 2015 at 06:00am UTC
Marking: 30% of your grade in the course (10% for completing practice assessments and 20% from the median score of the marks from peers)

FINDING A MYTH
We have provided two methods to help you to select a myth to use for this assignment.

- select a myth from the Myths in the Media discussion forum
- select a myth that you have found yourself while searching the internet

FACT-MYTH-FALLACY STRUCTURE
The structure of your response will not follow that of a traditional essay that contains an introduction, thesis, body paragraphs and a conclusion. Instead we ask you to follow the structure discussed in Week 6 of the course and employed in the lectures that preceded it. This structure is that of Fact-Myth-Fallacy.

First, you will need to identify the Fact that replaces the Myth. This portion of your writing needs to include a scientific fact that is an alternative or replacement for the myth. For example, if the myth was, “The sun is causing global warming,” the alternative would be “human activity is causing global warming.” Try watching a lecture and asking yourself, “What is the fact that is mentioned early in the lecture?” Your fact needs to be “sticky”, meaning it is simple, clear and memorable (see the Sticky Science lecture in Week 6 for six characteristics of a sticky idea).

Second, you should identify the Myth you have selected. Be sure to state the myth as concisely and accurately as possible. If you have found an entire article or website that is devoted to the myth or contains multiple myths, please select only one myth or the most simplified representation of that myth. Include information about where you found this myth (website url, title of the article, author of the article). Before mentioning the myth, give a cue that you are about to mention the myth (this can be as simple as, “One myth says…”

Lastly, explain why the Myth is incorrect and identify the Fallacy present. Identify and explain the myth using scientific facts, clarifying how the myth distorts the fact. Then provide a simple way for readers to correct this myth in their minds. This might take the form of a detailed metaphor, an example or a catchy phrase to help them correct their misunderstanding.

HONOR CODE
It should go without saying, but we would like to remind you of the first point in the edX Honor Code Pledge:

By enrolling in an edX course, I agree that I will complete all mid-terms and final exams with my own work and only my own work. I will not submit the work of any other person.

Please make sure that any work you submit for this assignment contains your own ideas and writing. Cite information that needs citation and acknowledge all research appropriately.

PEER ASSESSMENT
As you review the work of your peers, it’s important to understand and recognise the challenges created by peer assessment. As you read the work of others, be kind and considerate. Remember that this is a course that contains participants from all over the globe with different levels of expertise in both writing and science. Reward the honest effort of students and do your best to provide a fair appraisal of their writing. You will note on the rubric that grammar, spelling and style are not marked. Instead we ask you to focus on the elements of the rubric and mark accordingly.

MARKING
The entirety of peer assessment is worth 30% of your mark in the course. This 30% is broken up into two different assignments. 10% is devoted to practice and 20% is devoted to the median score from the marks given by your peers. You can find more information about the practice and about the assessment rubric in the next units. Please understand that peer assessment is a new online learning tool that we are excited to share with you and realise that we cannot control the exact grade you will get as a result of this process. However, your ability to pass this course should not be jeopardised by this process or this assignment. Instead of focusing on the exact grade you earn in the course, it’s more important to focus on the learning you have completed throughout the course.​

This could be fun.

Any suggestions?

Bob Wilson

 

+1

D*mn it! You know me too well!

If I were challenging myself it would be:

"FACT: Sea level is the earth's thermometer"​

Bob Wilson

 

ROTFLMAO!!

Bob Wilson