How To Talk To A Skeptic video presentation

[Tempest Stormwind]

I happened upon this a while ago, but I never thought to share it here because it's done rather dully in comparison to Greg's videos. However, it's still ongoing, and covers all the common talking points, including some Greg skipped.

http://cce.890m.com/part00/

It's well worth going through in its own right.




Special note for the book: Check out the segment on Attacks on the Consensus, Hansen's '88 Scenarios, Who Cares? and Why Now? in particular, although most of the material in the rest of it is interesting.

[goney3]

Thank you for posting this Tempest... it took me two days to go through them, but you're right, its well worth watching them. Great series, I can't wait till he finishes the last segment.

Cheers!

[cce]

Glad you like the videos. I decided to put off the last one (which is a topic unto itself) so I could concentrate on fixing problems in the earlier parts. If you go to the main page, I've started posting the semi-final version in html format. From that, I will re-record the presentation. It also includes a fairly complete bibliography.

There is a fair amount of new material/reorganization of the sections that I've revised so far. I started out mainly to debunk skeptics, but then it turned into more of a summary of global warming issues.

http://cce.890m.com/

Beware that the free host that I use is kind of flakey. I chose it because it allowed video uploads, and had a high bandwidth limit. Once I get it to a point that I'm feeling good about, I am going to upload the sections to Google Video.

I'm always looking for input (particularly errors), and can be reached at the address on the site, or in the videos. I know the narration sucks, but that is a built-in problem with the narrator.

[776281]

Good stuff cce. I had always thought Mann's work had been thoroughly repudiated when in reality they were minor in hindsght criticisms. If it had been mine I would still be proud of it. Others have improved the studies, but it was Mann who started the process.

[Tempest Stormwind]

Originally Posted by cce

Glad you like the videos. I decided to put off the last one (which is a topic unto itself) so I could concentrate on fixing problems in the earlier parts. If you go to the main page, I've started posting the semi-final version in html format. From that, I will re-record the presentation. It also includes a fairly complete bibliography.

There is a fair amount of new material/reorganization of the sections that I've revised so far. I started out mainly to debunk skeptics, but then it turned into more of a summary of global warming issues.

http://cce.890m.com/

Beware that the free host that I use is kind of flakey. I chose it because it allowed video uploads, and had a high bandwidth limit. Once I get it to a point that I'm feeling good about, I am going to upload the sections to Google Video.

I'm always looking for input (particularly errors), and can be reached at the address on the site, or in the videos. I know the narration sucks, but that is a built-in problem with the narrator.

Thanks for dropping by, cce. (We've spoken very briefly on this before at Stoat; I post in the blogosphere as Brian D. My forum pseudonym is just one I've used for over a decade.)

I will probably have time later this week to go through the videos again more critically than I did when I discovered them, alongside the HTML revisions; I'll mail any errors or suggestions I glean to you when I do. I can't promise this week, but I can promise it'll be done soon. My chief issue from earlier -- the read-off-a-sheet narration style -- is something you've already said you'll handle in a rerecording, so the quick response there is Yay.



776281, to understand the "hockey stick was debunked!" claim's fallaciousness, you need a solid background in statistics -- or a walkthrough from someone skilled in both statistics and discourse. I'd suggest Tamino (aka Hansen's Bulldog) for this; look for a series of posts titled "PCA" (Principle Components Analysis, which is the technique used by Mann to integrate the proxy data he used). One of the later parts (4, I believe) goes into the complaint that led to the "it was debunked!" claims -- and you may be surprised.

[cce]

Tempest,

Thanks for any input you can give me. The narration style probably won't change much. It's too complicated to wing it, and as soon as I start reading from a script I turn into a robot. I'm removing a good deal of the annoying sarcasm, which will be the biggest change in tone.

I just uploaded the revised version on temperature reconstructions (hockey stick):
http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=18

The biggest change is that I've added the Wegman Report, and I compare/contrast it with the NRC panel/North Report.

[Lugubrizione]

Very nice work. You gave me more ammunition for use in climate change debates. The volcano stuff really blew me away. I'll try to put together some constructive criticism when I have seen and "digested" all of it.

Glad you decided to lighten up on sarcasm. http://www.slate.com/id/2185720/ People like slapstick, humor, fun & positive stuff. Being too negative might scare people away.

I have a problem when I meet skeptics, I get so disappointed, and then I get mad: "How the flippedy heck can you still believe there's doubt about manmade climate change!?" Hearing about sunspots, natural variations, CO2 is good for us, etc etc all over...

Fred Singer & Co should be put on trial for crimes done to humanity. I am not kidding.

[cce]

I've posted the html version of "Solar and Cosmic Rays." This will be the last "big" change from the draft video presentation (the new version is about twice as long). The relationship between clouds and solar irradiance and clouds and cosmic rays (and basically anything having to do with clouds in climate science) is somewhat bewildering, and there is a lot of contradictory stuff out there. I've tried to summarize it to the best of my understanding.

http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=19

[cce]

I posted the next section, "Attributing Mankind." The only major change is the addition of the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=20

I also experimented with Adobe Presenter, which is probably what I am going to use to create the final "video" version. It converts powerpoints into flash-based presentations with navigation tools. The quality is better, and it produces a number of small files, instead of one great big one. This let's me get around the time limit of ~17 minutes.

To see how it is going to work, I recreated the introduction (with changes). It can be viewed here:

http://cce.890m.com/introduction

I also converted the powerpoint theme into generic black and white, and enlarged a number of graphics. This makes it easier to read, which will be important when I upload to Google Video (limited to 320X240).

The version of Presenter that I used seems pretty buggy, although a new version will be released in the next few weeks. Sometimes it will start playing two narration tracks at the same time, but if you replay the slide, the problem goes away. I'm interested to know if anyone else has that problem, or if it's something screwy with my machine.

[776281]

Good stuff cce and better presented. Unfortunatly there seems to be a problem between your presentation and my computer. Once it starts buffering it often stops.

[Tempest Stormwind]

Presenter's working great over here; having the slide-by-slide navigation helps a LOT on the video presentation. I haven't yet seen the bug you mention; it may be a buffering problem (i.e. it buffers the next slide too quickly relative to the playspeed).

(I'm still going through the solar and cosmic rays entry information-wise.)

[cce]

I've posted the next section, "Climate Models."
http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=22

The biggest change was the addition of a slide on the tropical troposphere.

Next up, Hansen's '88 scenarios, which is fitting given 20th anniversary this week.

A German blog used the draft video presentation for nefarious purposes (assuming I understand the translation):
http://klimakatastrophe.wordpress.co...dem-jahr-1988/

I'm going to add a slide comparing the accuracy of Hansen's scenario B to observations, and the accuracy of the satellite temperature analyses. Scenario B is off by about 25%, but UAH required a 40% correction in 2005, and even now is 25% less than RSS! I suppose it's fitting that the warming trend of Hansen's most plausible future scenario was/is more accurate than Spencer and Christy's interpretation of the past.

[776281]

Gave up trying to watch & went for the read. So far very informative and understandable, a good bridge between hard science and trivialization.

Good work

Prior to seeing your work I had accepted the Mann debunked claims. Not that I am a statistical expert, but I had not even checked. I had seen the debunked claims and virtually no defence. You have put it into perspective.

[cce]

I just posted "Hansen's '88 Scenarios."

http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=23

[cce]

I've posted the next section titled "Summary of Changes." I improved the discussion of glaciers and added an additional slide on Antarctic sea ice. Also, the sea ice extent plots have been improved.

http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=25

[cce]

I posted the section "Who Cares?!" I added a slide on ocean acidification and coral bleaching and corrected a few errors.

http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=27

[cce]

I posted "Why Now?"

http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=29

I'm going to start work on the final section, "Solving the problem" this week. This is entirely new. This is what I am thinking, in terms of the basic structure:

The goals/targets. I think the best is Hansen's "alternative scenario" (1 degree of additional warming) which focuses on reducing the non-CO2 forcings first, buying us enough time to cut CO2 over the long term (staying below 450 ppm). The IPCC scenarios were designed some time ago, and they are too optimistic, ie to prevent 2 degrees of additional warming (not good).

"Price on Carbon." A slide or two explaining the need for some kind of government framework that sets an increasing price on emissions. i.e. Carbon tax, cap and trade/auction, "sky trust" etc.

"Stabilization wedges." How each solution can play its part. The original paper is outdated, but the idea is correct.

Efficiency. California example. De-coupled utility pricing. Smart grid. HVDC transmission lines. Building codes. Appliance standards.

Slides covering the major technologies
Solar (Nano-solar, solar hot water, concentrated thermal)
Wind (Denmark example)
Geothermal (Nevada potential)
The nuclear question
Other
Plug-in hybrids
Biofuels. Cellulosic ethanol/butanol, algae biodiesel. (segueway into . . .)
Agricultural practics. Low till? Fertilizer use. Pyrolysis/Biochar. Rainforest preservation.

Any other ideas?

[gaiasdaughter]

cce wrote:

Any other ideas?

Just a thought. You mentioned nuclear in your list. I don't know how far nuclear power has come in the past few years, but I found it interesting that France had to shut down some of its reactors during the 2003 heat wave -- not enough cool water for the cooling towers. In a world that will be getting warmer with more droughts expected, that would be something to consider.

[776281]

Not sure where but I heard somewhere that if we converted all the coal fired power stations to nuclear burner reactors then the available uranium supplies would last 35 years.

Me thinks it may have been one of Prof Ric Beal's U Tube videos.

T'was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQOMQGm-Uj0 near the end

[cce]

If I remember, just last year one nuclear plant in the Southeast was shut down, or very close to shutting down because of overly warm river water, or not enough available water (due to the drought). I mainly want to address how nuclear is not the silver bullet a lot of people think it is (thus the "nuclear question.") I'm going to do the same with coal w/CCS.