tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post4993818330803477224..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Scientists Need AttitudeMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-61681271620147394952010-08-15T18:13:10.669-07:002010-08-15T18:13:10.669-07:00There is a very good book about the problem of per...There is a very good book about the problem of persuasion with people who are sure that they are right:<br /><br />http://beingwrongbook.com/pressUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16888223087774725299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-5210441014451432412010-08-15T13:55:15.240-07:002010-08-15T13:55:15.240-07:00I think that leaving comments in newspapers is of ...I think that leaving comments in newspapers is of marginal, if any, use. You'll typically see "149 comments" or some such and a quick degeneration into insult hurling. I think the only ones who read them are the ones already unalterably committed to their position. Now and again I'll do it, but only for fun, never with the idea that it does any good.<br /><br />Frankly, it's interesting and useful to know who funds whom but I don't think a lot is gained by banging on the table and saying "but he's funded by the fossil fuel industry." It's certainly not relevant to the truth of what's being claimed. Attack the information, not the funding source.<br /><br />I like the idea of a film but if it's a documentary that winds up on Planet Green, it's pretty much wasted.<br /><br />The concept of engaging in a more directly confrontational dialog seems promising but I'm still not seeing anything that is a "game changer" here.<br /><br />I think Michael's (and others) linking of things like the Russian heat wave, the Pakistani floods, the China landslides, etc. is promising.<br /><br />Finally, it takes quite a nut case to think that fossil fuels will last forever (though such nut cases exist - Michael Medved is an example) so hammering on fossil fuel replacement for energy security seems promising.<br /><br />My read is, however, that the sorts of sea changes required to take significant action as a society will not be possible until the threat is immediate and unambiguous (think Pearl Harbor).King of the Roadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-1388119118584054362010-08-15T10:40:44.727-07:002010-08-15T10:40:44.727-07:00In short, get into attack mode in more public foru...In short, get into attack mode in more public forums than science blogs. I have made a habit of posting comments at articles of newspapers and other mainstream media, like CNN and AP on the internet. To facilitate this, I've registered with major newspaper websites all over the country, so I can leave comments to articles.<br />I don't need an article about climate change to do this. Any article on politics is enough for me to comment on why no one should vote for climate change deniers. <br />The tea baggers are always posting comments about voting out democrats in the fall. I counter with comments about voting out deniers.<br /><br />These are read by a wider audience than science blogs are. AP's ongoing coverage of the BP gusher has given me lots of oppurtunities to post these comments. Whats frustrating is that I'm accesssing these AP stories through Yahoo, where uneducated yahoo deniers seem to be in the majority. They don't seem to know what to do, when confronted with actual facts. <br /><br />I keep text files filled with things I can readily post in comments at these places, allowing me to flood them with factual information that counters the inept denier comments that usually are just parroting denier talking points. Often I just cut and paste from my blog, like I did above.<br /><br />Maybe if enough of us do this, it will have the intended effect.<br />But I think the movie would have the most impact.Richard Mercerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12562319064021702411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-45995123130475930572010-08-15T10:38:31.227-07:002010-08-15T10:38:31.227-07:00On paper, Balling and Michaels have credentials.
...On paper, Balling and Michaels have credentials.<br /><br />Balling wrote a book twenty years ago in which there is a preface by a Mr Wildavsky, if I remember the name right. Wildavsky's preface was the first place, as far as I know, that the idea of climate change as a collectivist conspiracy was raised.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-67820900488161847792010-08-15T10:37:23.954-07:002010-08-15T10:37:23.954-07:00Whether in suggested movie, or letters to the edit...Whether in suggested movie, or letters to the editor and editorials, information like the following may raise a few eyebrows.<br />(excerpted from my blog)<br /><br />{And how else, but by virtue of the fossil fuel industry's influence in Washington, could it possibly be, that Congress, during congressional hearings before the House Science committee, gave more weight to the opinion of Pat Michaels than to that of their own scientists at NOAA, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and a co-chairman and lead author of the IPCC's 1995 report? Well, they say Michaels has a charming personality. I'm sure.<br /><br />Pat Michaels was pitted against Jerry Mahlman, Chairman of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth Scientific Advisory Committee, and director of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.<br />They were questioned by Representative Rohrabacher (R CA), who by his own words doesn't know the difference between carbohydrates, hydrocarbons or CO2. He grilled Malhlman, and didn't listen to anything he said, then gave a free ride to Pat Michaels, praising him for his contribution. Mahlman had the disadvantage of talking in unemotional, factual scientific terms, which Rohrabacher couldn't care less about.<br /><br />Scientists are not usually trained in public speaking. As a rule, they are not skilled debaters, and are at a disadvantage when debating media savvy skeptic mouthpieces, who are not really interested in truth, so much as winning the hearts and minds of an audience, and advancing the political agenda of their fossil fuel paymasters. Real scientists tend to understate conclusions and speak in terms of probabilities of outcomes, which to the untrained ear, make it sound like they are unsure of the science. This is all people like Rohrabacher need to hear, as they percieve this as a weakness to be exploited.<br /><br />Robert Watson<br />lead author 1995 IPCC report on climate change impacts:<br />Senior scientist of White House Office of Science and Technology<br />Elected Chairman of IPCC by unanimous vote in 1996.<br /><br />He was pitted against Robert Balling who out and out lied about what science knew about rising temperatures in the Arctic, claiming temperature there hadn't risen in the last 50 years. In fact, NOAA had found temperatures at 9 Arctic stations in Alaska had increased by 5.5 C (9 F) over thirty years. Soil temperature had increased 2-5 C. Rohrabacher dismissed outright whatever Watson had to say, and only gave credence to Balling's testimony<br /><br />Robert Watson headed the IPCC until the Bush adminisration used their influence to have him removed because he was convinced of AGW. They had him replaced by Pauchari, who was agnostic, but now is also convinced. So now the deniers attack him.<br /><br />Pat Michaels received over $165,000 over a five year period in the 90s from the fossil fuel industry. Michaels' books and other publications are funded by the coal industry.<br /><br />Robert Balling and his associates received $300,000 from the fossil fuel industry in the 90s. He recieved $50,000 from mining company Cyprus Minerals. Cyprus is the largest funder of an extreme anti environmental group called Wise Use. Cyprus also gave money to Pat Michaels. Balling has received money from the German coal industry and the British coal industry as well.<br /><br />Ballings book "The Heated Debate" was funded by a right wing think tank(Pacific Research Institute) whose goal is the elimination of environmental regulations.<br />Kuwait funded his Arabic edition of the book.<br />Only under oath have either Michaels or Balling disclosed who funds them. Disclosure of funding is normally considered mandatory in science, for obvious reasons.}<br /><br /><br />Thanks to Ross Gelbspan for much of the above.Richard Mercerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12562319064021702411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-26364247726999930082010-08-15T10:31:43.464-07:002010-08-15T10:31:43.464-07:00King of the Road
"In what venue are the rugby...King of the Road<br />"In what venue are the rugby playing scientists going to have the opportunity to say these things to someone whose mind can be influenced?<br />On blogs? They already are. In newspapers and magazines? You've written extensively on the current futility of that. At presentations to public gatherings? Preaching to the choir I'm afraid. So what, exactly, is Davey suggesting?"<br /><br />I still believe what I have suggested on a few blogs, which is that a made for TV movie should be made, exposing the denial propaganda campaign for what it is.<br />I'm thinking of a movie along the lines of books like "Climate Cover-Up" and "Merchants of Doubt". Enlist sypathetic help from people in Hollywood who know how to make a hard hitting, impactful movie. There are several I can think of who would be good for this. Reach the public where they spend so much time, in front of their TV sets. <br /><br /> A not unrelated tactic is to make it widely known what charlatans people like Monckton are, and make it clear that these are the so called "experts" who Republican deniers are listening to and using as "expert witnesses" in Senate and House committee hearings. Michael Crichton, Pat Michaels and Robert Balling have also testified to Congress, at the invitations of Inhofe, Joe (apologize to BP)Barton, and Rohrabacher.Richard Mercerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12562319064021702411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-37111552276849571202010-08-15T09:37:45.030-07:002010-08-15T09:37:45.030-07:00King of the Road:
"So what, exactly, is Dave...King of the Road:<br /><br />"So what, exactly, is Davey suggesting?<br /><br />"I don't disagree here but don't see what concrete steps are being recommended."<br /><br />MT:<br /><br />"if I need something requiring physical strength and agility done, I am willing to pay somebody to do it rather than kill myself or at best do a lousy job and take twenty times too long to do it."<br /><br />Well, unless you're literally willing to shell out moolah to get Revkin to write that killer investigative piece on climate denialism, or to get Obama to give that inspiring stentorian-toned speech about the importance of energy independence and all that, or to get a news outlet to publish that humongous 1-page ad explaining that the Heartland Institute's 'conference' are a pile of dung...<br /><br />An initial idea: Inactivists keep talking about 'questioning' stuff. As someone who actually <i>knows</i> climate science, can MT not turn that against them?<br /><br />When someone starts going off about grapes during the medieval warm period, just respond "How do I know you or someone else didn't simply make that up?"<br /><br />When Monckton says "You must not believe a word of what I say", immediately reply "I do not believe a word of what you say."<br /><br />If some inactivist starts talking about how the earth has been cooling since 1998, simply ask "By what method did you obtain the trend? Do you understand the theory behind this method?" And again, "How do I know you're not making this up?"<br /><br />Force the inactivists and their supporters to think critically about what they're spewing, and if that fails, to expose their own ignorance and gullibility. At the same time, make the public aware that your conclusions on climate science are based on verifiable facts, not lies or innuendo. It's morally legitimate, and it'll probably be effective. What's not to like?<br /><br />I have some other ideas, but I think they fall outside the scope of Davey's general thrust.<br /><br />-- <a href="http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-27459832640716329012010-08-14T17:39:19.661-07:002010-08-14T17:39:19.661-07:00I guess I have but I'm pert much a social lepe...I guess I have but I'm pert much a social leper anyway. Not being at the cutting edge of intellect but somewhere back along the chord, I guess I paid for the ticket without being able to take the ride. But I certainly agree (as does Dr. Dutch, whom I've quoted in your blog) that you should claim the authority you've earned.<br /><br />I'm not so sure about the M.D. example, given the popularity of homeopathy, anti-vax, etc. But I bet few would want to fly in an airplane designed by their carpenter cousin or occupy the 40th floor of a skyscraper designed by the guy across the street who sells insurance.<br /><br />Valid points but what's the process of actually staking the claim?King of the Roadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-36706651072689300312010-08-14T17:34:43.527-07:002010-08-14T17:34:43.527-07:00Michael Tobis --- I am sure it is right.
Just in ...<b>Michael Tobis</b> --- I am <b><i>sure</i></b> it is right.<br /><br />Just in the way practicing M.D.s learn "bedside manner".<br /><br />You need to explain to the patient that (s)he is very, very ill.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-7063923113178316662010-08-14T17:22:42.704-07:002010-08-14T17:22:42.704-07:00I hadn't thought of this aspect of the problem...I hadn't thought of this aspect of the problem before. At least not this clearly. I have no idea what to do about it. <br /><br />I constantly feel inferior to athletes, but if I need something requiring physical strength and agility done, I am willing to pay somebody to do it rather than kill myself or at best do a lousy job and take twenty times too long to do it. <br /><br />So I guess he's saying we have to claim the authority we have earned. I'm not sure that's right.<br /><br />But I think the insights are useful. Especially for me, perhaps, since I didn't go to a normal high school, and haven't really experienced this stuff in person.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-5096406260158125262010-08-14T17:07:58.969-07:002010-08-14T17:07:58.969-07:00In what venue are the rugby playing scientists goi...In what venue are the rugby playing scientists going to have the opportunity to say these things to someone whose mind can be influenced?<br /><br />On blogs? They already are. In newspapers and magazines? You've written extensively on the current futility of that. At presentations to public gatherings? Preaching to the choir I'm afraid. So what, exactly, is Davey suggesting?<br /><br />I don't disagree here but don't see what concrete steps are being recommended.King of the Roadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-76431678706413429442010-08-14T17:06:34.931-07:002010-08-14T17:06:34.931-07:00You need attitude, my mensch.You need attitude, my mensch.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-63409248812404184792010-08-14T16:39:06.162-07:002010-08-14T16:39:06.162-07:00It sounds like what we really need to do is show t...It sounds like what we really need to do is show those folks out there *how to make money* off all this :)<br /><br />I think the article states the problem very well. Not clear that the proposed solution is actually helpful - it doesn't quite connect the dots for me.Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.com