tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post8072891376940577897..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: FullergateMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-35393223991180406482010-07-30T12:53:47.143-07:002010-07-30T12:53:47.143-07:00YouTube vid. of Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan on ...YouTube vid. of <a href="http://climatecrocks.com/2010/07/22/stephen-hawking-and-carl-sagan-on-the-greenhouse-effect/" rel="nofollow">Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan on the Greenhouse Effect</a>Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-77172319661161067162010-01-31T14:45:03.648-08:002010-01-31T14:45:03.648-08:00For the record, I notified Mr. Fuller of my "...For the record, I notified Mr. Fuller of my "Where's Stephen Hawking?" comment above, and asked that he explain, if I'd wrongly jumped to conclusions about why his "trusted science communicators" list no longer included climate alarm-raiser Hawking.<br /><br />(Also for the record, the response: I am not to notify Mr. Fuller of anything ever again.)Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-42352873274739272122010-01-30T00:07:30.418-08:002010-01-30T00:07:30.418-08:00s/dead-and-trusted/trusted (but regrettably deceas...s/dead-and-trusted/trusted (but regrettably deceased, and much missed)/Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-37921369261272943862010-01-29T22:08:32.368-08:002010-01-29T22:08:32.368-08:00An interesting pair of writings from Mr. Fuller. ...An interesting pair of writings from Mr. Fuller. Bear with me...<br /><br />First, a <a href="http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/01/bad-guys.html?showComment=1263239927455#c2213583851022260213" rel="nofollow">comment</a> here at Chez Tobis:<br /><br /><i>"...Trust is earned, not given, and is earned by frank and honest talk that includes admission of uncertainty and error. The public communicators of scientific information that I have trusted in the past--Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, etc.--do not seem to have replacements in the modern world. ..." </i><br /><br />Later, a comment (by Fuller) on his "Global warming food fight--conclusion" Examiner blog <a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Global-warming-food-fightconclusion" rel="nofollow">post</a> ("...My final remark to Tobis was that he was a blowhard and I didn't want anything more to do with him..."):<br /><br /><i>"I do trust people who communicate honestly and who listen. As I wrote on Tobis' garbage heap, I trusted people like Carl Sagan and Steven Jay Gould when I was young--there ain't nobody writing like they did these days."</i><br /><br />Exercise for the reader: which science communicator has been dropped from the dead-and-trusted pantheon?<br /><br />Answer: the live one, who can still weigh in on climate change.<br /><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/hawking-warns-we-must-recognise-the-catastrophic-dangers-of-climate-change-432585.html" rel="nofollow">Hawking warns: We must recognise the catastrophic dangers of climate change</a>Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-89894834168878129122010-01-29T00:09:06.394-08:002010-01-29T00:09:06.394-08:00For those who want more, Fuller responded to the a...For those who want more, Fuller responded to the above exchange on his blog jan. 12 with <a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Global-warming-food-fightconclusion" rel="nofollow">this post</a>; and Bart has a boiled-down extended dialogue with Fuller <a href="http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/tom-fullers-advice-for-warmists/" rel="nofollow">here</a>, where TF dispenses advice on strategy.Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-84921872352232547532010-01-14T17:49:05.825-08:002010-01-14T17:49:05.825-08:00Interesting thread. I thought that one line of Mic...Interesting thread. I thought that one line of Michael’s bears repeating:<br /><br /><i>"The problem is that you take seriously on the matters of the underlying substance people who ought not to be taken seriously, and you ignore the people who ought to be taken seriously."</i> <br /><br />We all look for information and there is a sea of conflicting information, from scientific articles to news articles, opinion pieces and web sites. We all make decisions on who to trust and which information to trust, especially since few of us have the depth of knowledge or time to examine fully every claim that is made, so we rely on our ability to discern reliable sources from unreliable sources, which leads us to the next point:<br /><br /><i>"The only way to avoid being a de facto deoncstructionist, is to acknowledge that who the real experts on a given matter are is a factual question, not a question of inclination or opinion.<br /><br />"To act is if there were no objective answer to this question is to discount the scientific method entirely. And if you do that, you and your allies will be grossly incapable of coming up with an approach that works.<br /><br />"Nature always wins. You don't get to elect a new nature. You have to cope with the nature you've got.<br /><br />"It is the obligation of those who understand what nature is telling us to explain it as well as we can. It is the obligation of those who don't, to admit that they don't."</i> <br /><br />What seems blindingly obvious to a scientist seems to be hidden from many non-scientists, and attempts to explain this leads to charges of "elitism" and "arrogance".<br /><br />An unrelated point is whether there is some sort of "extra credit" for being a maverick - a Fuller or a Cockburn. Maybe a way to claim independence or self-importance - I don't know.Deech56https://www.blogger.com/profile/01075060714218498521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-77260211651353494892010-01-14T14:03:18.354-08:002010-01-14T14:03:18.354-08:00dhogaza says in my saying "[they leave] becau...dhogaza says in my saying "[they leave] because you've passed judgment on them.", that I'm "assuming 2 things: ..."<br /><br />I wasn't weighing in on whether the judgment was appropriate, I was saying that the time/place for it is not when you're engaging in dialog. Try not to co-sign for the Huff.<br /><br />(and I repeat, this *is* a "we teach what we most need to learn" kind of statement; I too have sinned.)<br /><br />re Mr. Fuller's above<br />> "But what on earth gives you the right to pronounce on my capability to write on climate science? Did you investigate my academic background or professional experience?"<br /><br />I've had an email exchange with Mr. Fuller about his academic background, and added the info to his <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Thomas_W._Fuller" rel="nofollow">SourceWatch page</a>.Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-92042882382289437262010-01-14T11:13:33.028-08:002010-01-14T11:13:33.028-08:00Hank:
"Wow. Tease, turn, and run.
Becha he ...Hank:<br /><br />"Wow. Tease, turn, and run.<br /><br />Becha he posts new bait over at his blog, hoping to bring visitors in, where they add to his bank account."<br /><br />Yes, Tom has done this on a variety of blogs (as I imagine Hank has noticed).<br /><br />Steve Bloom:<br /><br />"IOW, his claim to be intellectual open was simply a ploy, and hardly an original one (Lomborg, Liljegren and McIntyre all use it to varying extents)."<br /><br />Yes to this, too. I came to that conclusion after following his blog (and attempting to engage) for a few days.<br /><br />He's a waste of time. Personally, after figuring out his game, I chose to quit feeding his notion of self-importance and his bank account by ignoring his blog.<br /><br />Anna:<br /><br />"Because you've passed judgment on them. If instead you continue to phrase your subsequent points as questions, ultra-civilly, that'll take away the reason they've been seizing on for leaving."<br /><br />You're assuming two things:<br /><br />1. Honesty on Tom Fuller's part<br /><br />2. Our having no prior experience, or at least not enough prior experience, to make an informed judgement about him.<br /><br />In my case, at least, #2 isn't true, and #2 has led me to reject #1.dhogazahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13589109126483161671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-19323485783124026922010-01-14T07:17:29.350-08:002010-01-14T07:17:29.350-08:00Yes, I just mean that to an ordinary observer perh...Yes, I just mean that to an ordinary observer perhaps seeing only this, it doesn't necessarily help if other people know this or that about Fuller's person - it only distracts them and allows him to be a victim, if that is brought in. Anyone can be called evil easily.<br /><br />If Fuller's key science points can be shown to be completely dead wrong, that is much stronger evidence to any reasonable onlooker.<br /><br />First argue the assumptions, then the methods and then the motivations, or however it went?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-91069809569692780672010-01-13T18:00:12.402-08:002010-01-13T18:00:12.402-08:00gl, anybody who thinks it's worth their time c...gl, anybody who thinks it's worth their time can proceed to Fuller's blog and engage with him, noting that Bart has done so and gotten no result whatsoever. You make similar points to mine about Fuller's wv confusion, but note that his understanding of the wv feedback is what Fuller pointed to as the basis for his "skepticism." <br /><br />I read the first few months of Fuller's posts in real time, and frankly it looked to me as if he knew at the beginning where he would end up. IOW, his claim to be intellectual open was simply a ploy, and hardly an original one (Lomborg, Liljegren and McIntyre all use it to varying extents).Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-19631506001742343502010-01-13T17:10:53.817-08:002010-01-13T17:10:53.817-08:00Having done some posting on a libertarian blog, it...Having done some posting on a libertarian blog, it quickly gets tiring if you're the only one having a scientific point of view, the barrage is quite large in volume even in a relatively small place and it just gets so disgusting you don't want to do it anymore because of that, not because of any change of heart.<br /><br />Hence I think it should be extra polite here, and less putting words into someone's mouth or assigning sinister motives to them. (I admit having done some of that earlier.)<br /><br />Eyes on the point. Truth, facts, evidence.<br /><br />Also, having Tom read Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming is a very good suggestion.<br /><br />The "water vapor rains out quickly" shows a likely confusion about feedback vs forcing. (At the risk of putting words to someone else's mouth).<br /><br />For anyone else reading: water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It is a feedback, not a forcing precisely because <br />1) it rains out quickly<br />2) but there is a lot of water on the surface, hence when it gets warmer, a lot more evaporates quickly<br /><br />CO2 is a forcing since it doesn't come out so quickly and if the temperature rises, it doesn't change the amount of CO2 (though slowly it does, but in the short term it's not a feedback), rather humans burn coal and oil and peat and put it in the atmosphere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-8916717691381772802010-01-13T16:05:28.575-08:002010-01-13T16:05:28.575-08:00MT to Fuller:
> It seems the best place to
>...MT to Fuller:<br /><br />> It seems the best place to<br />> start is to ask you how <br />> you picked your sources.<br /><br />Yep. Sure scared him off!Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-88105188129467327272010-01-13T09:13:57.911-08:002010-01-13T09:13:57.911-08:00The key information about Fuller *was* extracted. ...The key information about Fuller *was* extracted. His grasp of the science is poor, as demonstrated by the bit I quoted. He finds the science itself too hard (has to be "walked through it") and prefers "plain language" expositions of uncertainty by the likes of RP Sr. If he was really acting as a journalist rather than an advocate with an agenda, he'd have responded to the paleo issue I raised.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-2577264221017450942010-01-13T07:52:12.009-08:002010-01-13T07:52:12.009-08:00Anna Haynes - that approach does not work with you...Anna Haynes - that approach does not work with your common or garden internet denialists. They'll either manufacture an excuse to flounce off or plough onwards with their ignorance, and it is probably better to get rid of them quickly rather than waste time on them.<br /><br />On the other hand it may well work for named individuals who have a public presence to maintain, such as we have here.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-7904232476297152242010-01-12T23:48:38.073-08:002010-01-12T23:48:38.073-08:00Keep in mind that from here on out, the frame the ...Keep in mind that from here on out, the frame the inactivists will be striving for is the "bullying and arrogance" one.<br />(and yup, both words were used here)<br />And expect efforts to, ah, encourage you into saying/doing stuff that can be framed that way.<br /><br />> ...Then they rush off in a blur before their seat is even warmed up<br /><br />Because you've passed judgment on them. If instead you continue to phrase your subsequent points as questions, ultra-civilly, that'll take away the reason they've been seizing on for leaving.<br /><br />(at least, that's what I think, and I'd like to see a more extended exchange, to see how it turns out.)Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-78511629153455509102010-01-12T22:24:43.236-08:002010-01-12T22:24:43.236-08:00Then they rush off in a blur before their seat is ...<i>Then they rush off in a blur before their seat is even warmed up, don't they? </i><br /><br />Many, many years ago (decades! Gah!), I had an apartment for not long at all where I'd go into the kitchen in the middle of the night, turn on the light, and I could see several cockroaches scurrying away. <br /><br />Surprisingly, they never had anything useful to say.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-47437372080907604352010-01-12T22:17:41.139-08:002010-01-12T22:17:41.139-08:00I'm happy to give any persistent naysayer of a...I'm happy to give any persistent naysayer of any stripe on this blog a feature article for them to demonstrate the depth of their knowledge. I'm awfully tempted to call them all somebody-gate, but I suppose that won;t attract much participation.<br /><br />Recently we have had two guys who didn't seem to have anything to back up their knowledge. There's also someone calling theirself "Vinny Burgoo", who is a smart cookie. Alas, Vinny seems to be getting the gist of things too quickly to have a really silly sort of argument with.<br /><br />But I don't know what attracts people to my blog. <br /><br />The guys who thing we're in the wrong tend to roll up their sleeves, look for a moment like they're settling in for long enough to at least tell us what the heck they're going on about. Then they rush off in a blur before their seat is even warmed up, don't they?Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-63564532280746403722010-01-12T20:28:37.659-08:002010-01-12T20:28:37.659-08:00Michael, next could you invite journalist David Ro...Michael, next could you invite journalist David Rose over for a discussion of Latif's research?Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-5353837509123227742010-01-12T18:53:49.186-08:002010-01-12T18:53:49.186-08:00Low-rent dissemination channel. Not enough talent ...Low-rent dissemination channel. Not enough talent to be a propagandist. Ignorage is the appropriate action, and ridicule spices up the stew.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08191155460701692880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-47896725585611346322010-01-12T18:36:31.041-08:002010-01-12T18:36:31.041-08:00Suggestion/request for y'all, in a "we te...Suggestion/request for y'all, in a "we teach what we most need to learn" kind of way -<br /><br />Do keep these exchanges excruciatingly on-topic and polite. The "cleaner" they are, the less there is in the exchange to object to (which objections introduce noise), the clearer the portrait.Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-5878641724609175242010-01-12T18:10:14.554-08:002010-01-12T18:10:14.554-08:00> I can understand you questioning my comprehen...> I can understand you questioning my comprehension of science (although you never once in all of this asked me about it, despite several broad hints).<br /><br />I shall ask. I've been wanting this info anyway, for Sourcewatch.<br /><br /><br />Note to MT: please continue with these exchanges; I find them extremely interesting.Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-22984455701367466022010-01-12T17:49:26.225-08:002010-01-12T17:49:26.225-08:00Both of those are good, Eli, but mid-20th century ...Both of those are good, Eli, but mid-20th century they ain't. *Surely* you recall. If not, may I suggest another drink? :)Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-41792454524130047782010-01-12T17:48:18.349-08:002010-01-12T17:48:18.349-08:00I am glad that I asked Tom to speak more on his un...I am glad that I asked Tom to speak more on his understanding of the water vapor feedback. If little old me is scratching his head at his response that is not a good sign for Mr. Fuller.<br /><br />Thanks to Mr. Rabett for his link to John Fuller's article. I have read it before but it is worth reading again.<br /><br />PatPadraig Tomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06483647257675174364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-12945203683828095222010-01-12T17:03:58.742-08:002010-01-12T17:03:58.742-08:00Tom Fuller, whom it seems won't be back to rea...Tom Fuller, whom it seems won't be back to read this, would do well to take the time to study "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-34534101721056066412010-01-12T14:42:59.359-08:002010-01-12T14:42:59.359-08:00Eli suspects it's from John Farley although he...Eli suspects <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/01/cockburning.html" rel="nofollow">it's from John Farley</a> although he would settle for <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/01/thomas-knutson-is-very-dangerous-guy.html" rel="nofollow">this one</a> from Thomas KnutsonEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.com