tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post1547249872761694637..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: The D-Word and the S-wordMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-89466735616350204482015-03-02T09:02:52.471-08:002015-03-02T09:02:52.471-08:00I usually firget to use such words like you mentio...I usually firget to use such words like you mentioned, maybe becuase I'm a girl and not interested to harm others verbaly.<br />But, and there is a but, when I see people who attack my climate change allegations and say that this is all nonsense, then yea, I can use some nice words to make them understand that Earth is diying while they get cash from industry cartels.<br /><a href="http://www.alternative-energies.net/a-few-solutions-to-fight-climate-change-in-2015/" rel="nofollow">http://www.alternative-energies.net/a-few-solutions-to-fight-climate-change-in-2015/</a><br />If they read this they will understand that the problem is real and what are the solutiuons in this case.Elenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17474003008720023822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-91226609336650172652015-02-18T22:08:11.623-08:002015-02-18T22:08:11.623-08:00https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/02/18...https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/who-to-believe-tobis-or-your-lying-eyes/Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12747117922597525042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-55945964382645396782015-02-18T21:11:49.910-08:002015-02-18T21:11:49.910-08:00Tobis denier
Update: Don't miss Sou's...Tobis denier <br /> <br /> <br />Update: Don't miss Sou's comment #15 at the Shewonk thread on the delicate balancing act of the denier sites. I hadn't thought of this. It argues against participating. <br /> <br />Blogger Tom said... <br />What many of us hear: <br /> <br />(equations, rhetoric, hysteria, etc.)... 'You are the scummy equivalents of skinheads who deny the Holocaust ever occurred.' <br /> <br />January 12, 2011 at 3:37 PM Delete <br />Blogger Michael Tobis said... <br />Right, Tom, that's, um, the point. <br /> <br />January 12, 2011 at 3:53 PM <br /> <br /> I believe that climate denialism is a social, not an intellectual or philosophical, movement. <br /> <br />Post title: What Deniers Hear <br /> <br />Bell uses the key technique that denialists use in debates, dubbed by Eugenie Scott the “Gish gallop”, - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/forbes-rich-list-of-nonsense/#sthash.uFgMvPwW.dpuf <br /> <br />"Skeptic" is hardly the name for this! "Denier" or "denialist" really isn't bad, but in addition to rubbing some people wrong, it doesn't capture the mindboggling recklessness of their activities. <br /> <br />If I bend over backwards to treat the deniers with respect on the grounds that there might be a few genuine skeptics in their ranks, meanwhile looking under every rock for any point of disagreement with people who have their heads screwed on right, my site starts to look like, well, Judith Curry's. <br /> <br /> It is one thing to engage, carefully and consciously. It's another to butter up the lazy denialists and bash the diligent efforts of genuine scientists. <br /> <br />Remember the story on here about how the denialists made a big fuss about something perfectly reasonable <br /> <br />Denialist websites issue headlines like <br />Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out False Global Warming Data <br /> <br />Post Title Spot the Denier Bug<br /> <br />Find a typical article on a typical denialist site, and spot the biggest error! <br /> <br />RC has been able to generate rapid responses to denier pseudoscience <br /> <br /> <br />One thing an anti-Morano would do would be just to monitor Morano and take advantage of his efforts as an early-warning system for new denialist nonsense. <br /> <br />Morano is taking his nomination as chief denier literally <br /> <br />Post Title: The Opposite of Denialism <br /> <br />OK, the new meme among the denialists is that the tide is with them, <br /> <br />I don;t think this is what the denialists have in mind when they ask me what would "falsify the hypothesis". <br /> <br />The denialists have picked it as one of their favorite refutations but it really doesn't refute much of anything. <br /> <br />The author of the denialist-celebrated point of view, by the way, has also written a brief celebration of what he calls "post-autistic economics", <br /> <br />No question that a full-blooded GCM is not for amateurs, but with this much at stake you'd think the denial camp <br /> <br />The article is rife with the usual denialist sleight of hand and drivel, but it is not at all clear that the author is insincere. <br /> <br />but it's still frequently brought up by the do-nothingists (who don't like to be called denialists but don't deserve to be called skeptics). <br /> <br />OK, we really need a name for those people that is less respectful than "skeptic" and more so than "crypto-Nazi", even though the latter, as an interpretation of "denialist", is a specious back-formation. <br /> <br />one of the most irritating aspects of denialism <br />Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12747117922597525042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-46772075674047339732015-02-10T02:32:49.631-08:002015-02-10T02:32:49.631-08:00Micheal, I prefer to be called a denialist rather ...Micheal, I prefer to be called a denialist rather than denier...it's more professional.<br />Btw some deniers(or denialists) can actually be in double denial..eg an AGW denier and a denier who denies it's the Sun ,stupid...here's an eg...this guy Doug Cotton..where I start out nicely talking to him here.<br />http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-infrared-radiative-structure-of-the-earth-s-atmosphere.html#comment-9486<br />but then finally lose my patience with him here..<br />http://www.principia-scientific.org/stack-theory-mathematics-paper-discredits-greenhouse-gas-climate-alarm.html<br />Macknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-27617983959942057672015-02-07T16:29:04.981-08:002015-02-07T16:29:04.981-08:00relevant: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/...relevant: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/02/global-warming-denial.htmlMichael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-55814502516898882322015-02-07T03:49:18.790-08:002015-02-07T03:49:18.790-08:00I try not to use "denier" publicly, alth...I try not to use "denier" publicly, although I'm sure I have had the odd lapse. It is not so much that it's a conversation stopper (I have no longer have any interest in online "conversations" with people I would consider to be deniers), but because it is a distraction from science and policy. The distraction suits the misinformers because it shifts the conversation--if that's what it is--towards the meta-stuff where they are as equally well-armed as the realists.<br /><br />Denial is the psychological processes that allow people to trump facts and expert consensus because of their emotional, cultural and political biases. It is thus central to the Kahan/Hulme/Betts model, but of less interest to the Information Deficit model that, at root, assumes than climate contrarians are rational people who are simply misinformed.<br /><br />What is foolish, though, is to blame the contrarians' obstinacy on the sometimes intemperate language of the realists. That's naive and ineffective. It's also patronizing, depicting entrenched contrarians as upset children who need to be spoken nicely to before they can be expected to listen.Andy Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16313161977123410684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-16066641618535743472015-02-06T17:24:36.758-08:002015-02-06T17:24:36.758-08:00Hello,
Here's why I think this post could mak...Hello,<br /><br />Here's why I think this post could make four posts instead.<br /><br />Your first part could be a whole post if you take time to tell a story that motivates the "If someone is badgering me about renouncing the so-called scandals of so-called “Climategate”." Instead, you dismiss that theorical person who doesn't know better than push your buttons as not being rational. This is not even true, BTW, as you did try to reason with that "someone":<br /><br />http://achemistinlangley.blogspot.com/2015/01/on-appeals-to-authority-climategate-and.html<br /><br />***<br /><br />Your second point is would important it deserves a whole post. To be honest, it does seem to me that you discovered that point as your wrote. If you start reading back your post starting with that point, I'm quite confident you'd see the other sections differently.<br /><br />Also, and more importantly, if you leave that section in one post, you can link to it over and over again, as it should.<br /><br />***<br /><br />Your third section is the worse. See how it starts:<br /><br />> The trouble with the Kahan/Leiserowitz etc. analysis of the debate is not that it's wrong. It is, in fact, correct in addressing part of the problem.<br /><br />This presumes a lot from the reader. This positions by opposition to a set of claims you don't even take the time to spell out. The "problem" and its "part" refers to nothing specific. Your solution is nowhere to be seen.<br /><br />I have no idea what to "move the needle" is supposed to refer in that sentence:<br /><br />> Every time we listen to the Kahans and Leiserowitzes and their advice on how to "move the needle", how to move the bulk of the population to be more amenable to a reasonable climate policy, we create more people who are poor ambassadors for the science itself to those who want to engage the science.<br /><br />Worse, look at your expression "the Kahans and Leiserowitzes." In a post about labeling, for Frege's sake! <br /><br />You can do better than that, but it takes time, and space.<br /><br />My guess is that you've got this idea on the back burner for some time, and never got the chance to get it out of your chest. <br /><br />***<br /><br />Finally, there's the TL;DR. This shows you know how to make an argument. Yet, again, this would deserve more thought. It's quite obvious you're still far from having reached (13) with (12). <br />unclear.<br /><br />***<br /><br />All in all, a good pitch for some good sections in your book. Perhaps a chapter, but some pieces are missing.<br /><br />***<br /><br />To prove I read you, here's my take home:<br /><br />Using the D word is as silly as using the S word, the Postel's law should prevail [1], if only you want to win friends and influence people [2], most importantly newbies, to whom you have some science Kung Fu to teach [3], and time is running out.<br /><br />This takehome is not far from what I wrote at AT's:<br /><br />http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/110282461609<br /><br />Hope this helps,<br /><br />W<br /><br />[1] "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others"<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle<br /><br />[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People<br /><br />[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vMO3XmNXe4Willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-38595042285530108162015-02-06T16:41:42.682-08:002015-02-06T16:41:42.682-08:00I agree with most, especially that you have to see...I agree with most, especially that you have to see every new person as truly interested in learning.<br /><br />However, I wonder if there really is a lack of resources for a real skeptic to learn about climate change. There are so many wonderful books and a real skeptic would naturally start with a book written by an expert and not with some random text found on the internet. <br /><br />And, as a scientist, I also cannot say that I am overwhelmed with questions on my specialty, the removal of non-climatic changes from climate data. <br /><br />Most of the climate "debate" is about stuff that is no longer current research, such as all the claims that the greenhouse effect does not exist or that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. A "hobbyist" with time to learn about this topic may very well be more competent at answering such questions than a scientist.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-89419816452627819472015-02-06T15:54:35.317-08:002015-02-06T15:54:35.317-08:00Good post, and I think you've done something I...Good post, and I think you've done something I've seen noone else do and which I think is important. There is - IMO - a massive difference between using "denier" to label an individual and using it to simply describe some group whose names you don't specifically define. <br /><br />Also, I think you're making the perfectly valid point (at least I think this is a point you're making) that those who are currently complaining about the use of "denier" appear to be using the Holocaust to score some kind of point, which is essentially what they're complaining others have already done. ...and Then There's Physicshttp://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-42611357899103663932015-02-05T15:12:39.998-08:002015-02-05T15:12:39.998-08:00Excellent post. I will keep these ideas in mind i...Excellent post. I will keep these ideas in mind in future discourse. Eric Steighttp://realclimate.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-38698815033424293172015-02-05T14:48:39.562-08:002015-02-05T14:48:39.562-08:00All excellent points - thanks for connecting them ...All excellent points - thanks for connecting them together. <br /><br />I think you missed one aspect of this that bothers me. As you point out, there tend to be more people creating FUD around climate science than there are competent experts to explain it in the ways you're advocating. That means the people who do have the skill to explain well can easily be subjected to a "denial of service" attack (pun intended). Some of the more prominent scientists are occasionally subjected to a "Distributed Denial of Service" attack. When they're bombarded with FUD on many different social media channels at once, it's quite understandable that, being entirely human, they get angry, and use whatever they can reach for easily to shut the attackers down. Calling people deniers (and worse names) doesn't achieve anything constructive in terms of science education, but sometimes it's just a way of venting frustration.<br /><br />Plus, we're all still figuring out how to interact in a social media environment that keeps evolving. In that sense we're all somewhat unsophisticated for at least some of the time.<br /><br />Sometimes I swear at trolls, and sometimes I call them deniers. And usually I don't care what the effect is, I just need to get it off my chest. Being angry about denial of AGW is an entirely human response.Steve Easterbrookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11770382994758220846noreply@blogger.com