Daniela Gioseffi Does Climate Change … “Beware the Poets and Tragedians” (Plato)
Daniela Gioseffi Does Climate Change … “Beware the Poets and Tragedians” (Plato)
(May 9, 2015)
“Poetry is not to be regarded seriously as attaining to the truth…” (Plato). /// /// Normally I would not consider an article on Climate Change an appropriated topic for a blog dedicated to the history and culture of Italy south of Rome and southern-Italian Americans, and posted in an Italian American e-magazine. However, a recent e-mail I received from “AuthorAndActivist” (see at bottom) announcing a “Docu-Drama” produced by Italian American Anton Evangelista, celebrating the life of Italian American Daniela Gioseffi, gave me pause. /// /// The e-mail announcement notes that a significant reason for the Daniela-fest is her Climate Change activism. Although, “AuthorAndActivist” assures that there is much, much, more to the life of this lady, and not-to-worry, not an iota will be ignored. Indeed, there is a link in the e-mail to a five-minute three-part video featuring Ms. Gioseffi: first she talks about herself; second she posits time worn climate clichés; finally Ms. Gioseffi acting a carnival barker drumming money (“Yowsah Yowsah Folks… Just one thin dime, one-tenth part of dollar…”). /// /// I have the impression that Ms. Gioseffi is a (the?) darling of the Italian American literati, culturati and prominenti. Accordingly, in the spirit of Italian American dialectics (not to mention eristic Sicilianita), it seems appropriate that a marginal Sicilian American blogger might offer some Socratic-esque contrary thoughts on ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’, ‘extreme climate’ or 'climate crisis' (depending on which Greenpeace publication you are reading). /// /// More generally and more importantly, the larger issue, motivating this wee blog voice juxtaposed to a professional vociferous ‘Docu-Drama’, is that of ‘celebrities affecting public opinion’. Celebrities with no credentials qualifying them to speak on a given subject have enormous power to sway pubic opinion, while people with impeccable credentials about the subject are largely ignored. //// //// For example, why would an movie star such as Leonardo DiCaprio be asked to speak at the UN climate change summit instead of, say, MIT climate physicist Richard S. Lindzen? Why a poet and Docu-Drama star like Gioseffi be considered a more informed voice on climate change than the highly acclaimed climate scientist like Judith Currie?
Preface … English Majors and Climate Change
The British journalist James Delingpole, who holds an MA in English Language and Literature from Oxford, posits a fascinating observation. He writes:
“One of the most disturbing things I’ve noticed during my years in the Climate Wars trenches is the quite terrifying correlation between possession of an English Literature degree and off-the-scale ignorance about the environment. (“Climate Change: The Facts”; e-Book Location L 1876).
He goes on to give examples of exactly what he means:
- Roger Harrabin, the BBC environment analyst who so tirelessly digs up every eco-scare going. Guess what he read at Cambridge.
- Caroline Lucas, Britain’s first green MP, who once claimed— in all seriousness— that flying on holiday was as bad as knifing someone in the street because people are ‘dying from climate change’. Any idea what her specialist field might have been at university?
- Tamsin Omond, the Westminster-educated baronet’s granddaughter-turned-hardcore activist who once dumped a truckload of horse poo on Jeremy Clarkson’s doorstep in protest at his environmental incorrectness?
- Bryony— now Baroness— Worthington, Cambridge literature major and the activist from hard left environmental group Friends of The Earth who was the architect of the most expensive and pointless green legislation in British parliamentary history, the 2008 Climate Change Act which commits Britain to spend over £ 18 billion a year every year till 2050 ‘decarbonising’ its economy. (L 1886).
Further, Delingpole writes:
“But what special knowledge are these English Literature graduates bringing to the party that enables them to make these ex cathedra pronouncements as to who we should and shouldn’t trust?
An ability to make a passable, modern language translation of Beowulf? A deep insight into the nature of patriarchy in Georgian England, with special reference to Emma and Pride and Prejudice? The fact of their having almost understood some bits of James Joyce’s Ulysses? (L 1891)
Importantly, he goes on to say:
“It’s really not my intention here to mock people with English Literature degrees in particular or non-scientists in general. (L 1896).
Rather, he seems to be saying, it’s the dogmatic, near religious zeal, of these non-specialist and, as is the defining characteristic of zealots, their complete inability to listen to different voices that prevents them from making meaningful contributions to the issue.
Their education is not the problem per se! Rather, it’s their dogmatic refusal, indeed complete inability (as is characteristic of zealots) to give even a modicum of consideration to likes of highly qualified Climate Scientists such as: Partrick Michaels, Ian Plimer, Robert Carter, Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke Jr, Fred Singer, Judith Curry, etc. etc. etc.
(Note: emphasis on Climate Scientists! There is a propensity among Global Warmist to refer to “Scientists” in general (as in "Scientists say ..."). The opinions of biologist, chemist, etc. are to be taken into consideration; but the only meaningful scientific reference is to those with credentials in and actively involved with actual climate research. When someone says: “Scientists say ‘xyz’ about climate”; the first question should be “Are you refering to climate scientists? If so, who? Be specific about the person or persons to whom you refer!”)
What is significant about the “English Majors” Delingpole cites; is that they are all “celebrities”. These are not your ‘run-of-the-mill’ community college adjunct literature teachers. These are people who have risen to some prominence and are in a position to affect public opinion.
Is it not interesting that in an advance scientific society like the ‘West’, scientists are marginalized in the public opinion arena? English majors and other non-science educated celebrities decide which scientist “should or shouldn’t be trusted”. If an environmental scientist supports the celebrity Global Warming position (e.g. Michael Mann), s/he is trumpeted. If not (e.g. Judith Curry), then oblivion.
Introduction … Socratic Ignorance
The Oracle of Delphi pronounced Socrates the wisest man in all of Greece because unlike the nominal wise men of Greece (e.g. the Sophist), who presented themselves as men of knowledge while in fact ignorant, Socrates was wise enough to know that he knew nothing. Similarly, the Depression era political pundit Will Rogers was fond of saying: “I don’t know anything about politics. All I know is what I read in the newspaper.”
In that spirit of wise-ignorance, this article presumes no knowledge of issues on the ‘climate debate’. Rather, it posits some thoughts on the juxtaposing factual claims and logical inferences made in the climate debate.
Ultimately, non-expert government representatives of the non-expert public will decide public policy affecting climate issues. Both government representatives and the public at large have to make decisions not based on their own scientific expertise; rather the factual and logical veracity of the juxtaposing scientific contentions.
The operative concept here: juxtaposing scientific contentions. The rational thinker and decision-maker is characterized by carefully considering both sides of any argument. The rational citizen in a democratic society and their representatives are like members of a jury in trial. The jurors consider all relevant expert evidence and arguments, and then make a decision based on the preponderance of evidence and reasonable doubt.
Sadly, unlike jury trials, ALL the facts and logical arguments of climate change are NOT presented in an unemotional objective manner to the public and their representatives.
Rather, appeals to emotions (“our grandchildren”, “polar bears”, “Florida beach property”, “end of the world”, etc.) are substantiated with patently fallacious logic (‘argumentum ad populum’, ‘Argumentum ad Verecundiam’, ‘Proof by Repeated Assertion’; ‘Faulty Generalizations’; and, the most egregious insult to intelligence and most often heard Argumentum ad Hominem. One could go on listing a virtual compendium of fallacious logic in the climate debate).
Most worrisome, to my mind, is the highly sophisticated use of celebrities to manipulate the emotions of the public (precisely Plato's 'beef' with the poets). People with absolutely no credentials or capability to read and understand let alone critique scientific publications have enormous influence on the ‘beliefs’ of the masses.
Below some historic Earth climate FACTS that the celebrity "climate change" zealots conveniently ignore during their emotional tirades.
Ice Ages … Climate always changes!
“Climate has always changed and it always will— there is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change of temperature, of ice volume, of sea level or of extreme weather events.”
(Robert Carter: paleontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist: B.Sc. (Hons) in geology; Ph.D. in paleontology from the University of Cambridge. See: “Climate Change: The Facts” e-book Location 1915).
When the issue of ‘global warming’ became a major public issue (about the time of the celebrity Al Gore movie on the subject); my first thought was ‘no kidding Sherlock’. Of course there is global warming; I learned in high school that the earth is currently in an inter-glacial warming period (i.e. between Ice Ages).
Ice Ages (i.e. periods of glaciation) come and go. Which is to say the Earth’s climate gets colder (i.e. global cooling) and then warmer (i.e. global warming). There have been five Ice Ages, which gave way to five periods of “Global Warming”. During periods of ‘Global Cooling’, massive ice sheets up to two and a half miles high covered large parts of Europe, North America and Siberia.
See, for example, below three map illustrations of the extent of ice covering Europe, North America and Siberia during the most recent Ice Age:
Figure 1 Europe Ice Sheet
Figure 2 North American Ice Sheet
[
Figure 3
Siberian and N. American Ice Sheets
In turn, these periods of Global Cooling (i.e. Ice Ages) gave way to periods of ‘Global Warming’ . Over the past 2.4 Billion Years there have been five periods of Global Cooling (i.e. Ice Ages) and ‘Global Warming’ illustrated in the chart below:
Figure 4
A more detailed chart of the Cold/Warm oscillations during the past 450,000 years shows how the Earth temperature in the current inter-glacial Global Warming period compares with Earth temperatures in previous Global Warming periods. Notice that the current (Today) 'inter-glacial' temperature (approx. 30 degrees ) is cooler than the previous four 'inter-glacial' temperatures (follow the Red Line)
Figure 5
Climate variation during The Present Inter-Glacial Warming Period
As the above charts (Fig 4 & 5) show, the earth has been oscillating between Global Cooling and Global Warming periods for billions of years. Moreover, within the respective warming periods the earth’s climate varies between warming and cooling.
Now consider a closer look at the current warm period illustrated in the chart below. Notice that within the current interglacial Global Warming period, that began about 15,000 years ago, the temperature has been varying from warmer to cooler and back again (e.g. "Medieval Warming" and "Little Ice Age").
Figure 6
Note: during the "Medieval Warming" period, the Vikings colonized Greenland, and it supported agriculture and animal husbandry until the climate changed with the onset of the "Little Ice Age"; causing the Vikings to abandon their colonies. (see: http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/)
In short, all of these charts illustrate what Dr. Robert Carter means when he says:
“Climate has always changed and it always will— there is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change of temperature, of ice volume, of sea level or of extreme weather events.”
The burden of proof is on those who would have us believe that the variation in the Earth’s temperature over the recent decades has apocalyptic implication.
The emphasis is on “proof”! As in a jury trial, climate warmist must present evidence that support their contentions. However, as in a jury trial, the evidence must be factual and relevant, and not the product of willful and conscientious effort to distort reality and appeal to emotions.
With this in mind consider Al Gore’s egregious emotional dishonesty and insult to intelligence.
Al Gore Lies by Omission
Apocalyptic climate fear mongering celebrities use evidence of the above described perfectly natural ongoing inter-glacial warming process that has been a reoccurring part of Earth climate for two and a half BILLION years, as evidence of some sort of impending calamity.
For example, in one of the most brilliant examples of the use of film for propaganda and public opinion manipulation, Al Gore, in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", shows pictures of the shrinking of the Sahara Lake Chad since 1963. The changes in Lake Chad are presented as evidence for the FACT and dire consequences of Global Warming.
As all propagandists understand, the most excellent and affective propaganda is based on a factual ‘truth’ taken out of context. The factual truth establishes credibility. Then the fact is contextualized in a complete distortion of reality.
For example, according to Gore there is no doubt about the fact that Lake Chad has been shrinking since 1963. He states:
“Just 40 years ago Lake Chad was as large as Lake Erie--formerly the 6th largest lake in the world. But now due to declining rainfall and ever-intensifying human use, it has shrunk to 1/20th of its original size.” (http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Inconvenient_Truth_Al_Gore.htm)
Like a propagandist, Gore states a true fact; Lake Chad has been shirking since 1963. It’s true no doubt – everyone agrees.
But, in a classic example of a propagandist “Lying by Omission”, Gore takes the fact of Lake Chad shrinking over the past 40 years out of the context of the FACT that Lake Chad shrinking for the last 10,000 years.
What he does not state is that Lake Chad has been shrinking for about ten thousand years, since the end of the last Ice Age.
Indeed, geologist who study the geological history of the Sahara refer to the Ice Age Lake Chad as ‘Lake Megachad’, which was an inland sea the size of today’s Caspian Sea.
Further there were three other lakes in the present day Sahara that have dried up completely as a result of the Global Warming that has been going on for about the last ten-thousand years or so.
Consider the image below taken from “Shorelines in the Sahara … palaeolake Megachad” (Crake and Bristos Dept. Geography Uinv. London)
The authors write:
“The Sahara Desert is the most extensive desert on Earth but during the Holocene [end of Ice Age] it was home to some of the largest freshwater lakes on Earth; of these, palaeolake Megachad was the biggest…At its peak sometime before 7000 years ago the lake Megachad was bigger than the Caspian Sea, the biggest lake on Earth today.”
So … Is it the case that Al Gore does not know all of the historical facts about shrinking Lake Chad or is he Lying by Omission?
“It only takes one fact!” … Einstein
By definition poets should not be held to epistemological rigor. Poet’s appeal to emotions and the means by which they do so is exaggeration, hyperbole, non-sequiturs, analogies, and all the other linguistic tools in the poet’s compendium, coming under the aegis of “poet’s prerogative” or “poetic license”; i.e. the representation of reality in terms other than the way reality actually exists.
This is why Plato insisted that poets have no place in a well ordered state such as the "Republic" . Plato wrote: "Although we are admirers of Homer, we do not admire false representation even by him." (Book II 377-385; X 595-609)
In a well ordered state, decisions are made rationally based on the impeccably true representations of reality ... as it exist; not illusions of “Xanadu”; and other products of a poet’s “opium dream” (Coleridge).
Sadly, 'appeal to emotion' is one of the most affective ways to manipulate public opinion, and Ms. Daniale’s five minute carnival-esque drumming for money to pay for her biographical Docu-Drama is a case study in all the emotional tools in a poets work chest without regard to reality and intellectual rigor.
For example, at the 1:54 minute point of her Global Warming ‘plug’:
She says that “Ninty-nine percent of (not 'at' - caption error) the world's scientists say climate crisis is upon us …”
Of course this statement, by any standard of objective rational (let alone scientific) discourse, is patently poetic license (i.e. a grossly exaggerated and false representation of reality). This is a classic example of poetic hyperbole passed off as empirical fact for the purpose of affecting public opinion. Again, Plato's point: the poet has no regard for objective truth and reality! The stuff of poetry and poets is subjective emotions. The essence of poetry is venting and appealing to emotions with metaphoric language.
How could one possibly know what 99% of ALL the world's scientists think? Is there a database of ALL Scientists that one can telephone poll? Are we talking about 99% of ALL Scientists in every scientific field or just 99% of ALL climate scientists?
I guess climate scientists like Judith Currie and Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen and Ian Plimer and Pat Michaels and Bob Carter and Roger Pielke Jr.; one could go on with the names of such highly credentialed active climate researchers who do not think that there is some sort of apocalyptic "climate crisis upon us" ... I guess they are the 1% of ALL the world's Scientists in the poet’s opinion poll.
However, for the sake of argument let us say that in fact 99% of ALL scientists do agree on an apocalyptic global warming "climate crisis". Does that make it true?
Consider:
When the Nazis were conducting their anti-Semitic purges during the 1930s, they got one hundred physicists (including two Nobel Laureates) to sign a petition saying that Einstein’s theory of Relativity was not true.
When Einstein, who was at the time in the US, was asked about the petition he responed with a brilliant and absolutely eloquent understatement:
“It only takes one fact!”
This is to say that truths of science are not determined by opinion polls, they are demonstrated to be either true or false by replicable experiments. To disprove Einstein's theory or Newton’s Laws or any other scientific factual or theoretical claims, all it takes is one scientist preforming one experiment generating one contradictory 'fact' and the whole theoretical edifice collapses; regardless of what all the other 99.999% think!
In Sum
Jurors in a criminal trial are not expert criminologist, toxicologist, pathologist and all the other –ologist that give testimony; however, they are expected to gather in ALL the EVIDENCE (prosecutor's and defense's ... i.e. listen to and give due consideration to both sides of the argument), and make a rational judgment about the probability of guilt or innocence in terms of the ‘preponderance of evidence’ presented and ‘reasonable doubt’ about the veracity of the evidence presented.
Similarly, the citizens of a democratic society are not, or expected to be, experts on the various social issues presented to them such as Global Warming. However, they must make decisions based on: objective and objectively presented facts of both sides of the argument, and valid logical implications deduced from the facts.
Those who do not agree with this characterization of the decision-making process in science and democratic societies should be comfortable sending money to Daniela Gioseffi (Yowsah Yowsah ... ).
////////////
////////////
DISCLAIMER: Posts published in i-Italy are intended to stimulate a debate in the Italian and Italian-American Community and sometimes deal with controversial issues. The Editors are not responsible for, nor necessarily in agreement with the views presented by individual contributors.
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - RIPRODUZIONE VIETATA.This work may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission.
Questo lavoro non può essere riprodotto, in tutto o in parte, senza permesso scritto.
Add a comment
-
This Blog
-
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Most Commented
