tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post5448174854271772235..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Okies from MuskogeeMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-65748013419909860992011-04-24T17:18:53.904-07:002011-04-24T17:18:53.904-07:00late response, but I've been off doing other t...late response, but I've been off doing other things ...<br /><br />To the extent that anybody ever mentioned my usenet activities, they were puzzled that I was doing so, but were glad that I was. Not many such events.<br /><br />Newcomers pretty much always insist on making their own mistakes. I was 5 years ahead of you (apparently, I started in 1990) on sci.environment, and you went ahead with things I thought were mistakes. For that matter, you still do. And I go ahead with things you think are mistakes. Or at least we both rate priorities differently. Que sera, sera.<br /><br />I do periodically recall the idea we'd mentioned back then. I still think we were right not to pursue it, and that this hasn't changed with the invention of blogs. That was the idea of showing what a real scientific discussion looked like. No doubt there are real topics we disagree on, but from a standpoint of the real science, rather than you being a liberal or me preferring baseball to hockey. Still, I sometimes wonder if we were wrong about not pursuing it.Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-75786447319650537322011-04-22T16:00:59.745-07:002011-04-22T16:00:59.745-07:00Not ironic? The hat? You have no idea.
Somewhere ...Not ironic? The hat? You have no idea.<br /><br />Somewhere in the world I have seen a picture of a fourteen or so year old Leonard Cohen in what passed for western gear in Montreal in the fifties.<br /><br />Apparently his first musical experiences were in a cowboy band. I doubt they got many gigs, but if they did they presumably would be at bar mitzvahs.<br /><br />If I recall right saw it in a score book. If I could identify the book I'd buy it just for the picture. You can't get more ironic than that in a cowboy hat, but I try.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-13663845563249600462011-04-22T14:12:08.594-07:002011-04-22T14:12:08.594-07:00Let me just tap my inner redneck.
Climate scienti...Let me just tap my inner redneck.<br /><br />Climate scientists ain't got no PR problem. Nothing wrong with <a href="http://images.publicradio.org/content/2009/10/30/20091030_climate_race_gavin_schmidt_22.jpg" rel="nofollow">over-nourished</a>, <a href="http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sme/images/photos/me13.jpg" rel="nofollow">unkempt-yet-well-off</a> white dudes with <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=douche-beard" rel="nofollow">douchey</a> <a href="http://www.elementlist.com/images/gavin_brittany_brian_ed.jpg" rel="nofollow">facial hair</a> or <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2010/11/cool_scientists.php" rel="nofollow">John Mayer complexes</a> posuering as mad-as-hell-warriors in a grand, Science-y Climate Crusade. <a href="http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID25061/images/mann(1).jpg" rel="nofollow">Keep huggin' that tree</a> (pumps fist)! Git'r'done with those <a href="http://www.cs.uoregon.edu/events/icse2009/images/specialSessions/easterbrook.jpg" rel="nofollow">natural fibers and flowing locks</a>!<br /><br />Michael Tobis, sorry you didn't make the list. That 10-gallon hat is not nearly urban-coast-or-uber-hip-in-an-ironic-way enough. No "Rock the General Circulation Model" for you this year.Joshua Stultshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03506970399027046387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-25478906533879009202011-04-12T15:27:12.415-07:002011-04-12T15:27:12.415-07:00I think failed is pretty strong. What happened is,...I think failed is pretty strong. What happened is, "we" (meaning reality) "won" on ozone depletion (and I was involved with helping scientist friends on that). I think that's where the first climate practice was. They tried to leave a lingering sense of obligation: "yes, we were overpowered by the greenies on that one, so next controversy, give our side first, and you should make concessions right away to the lobbyist version of reality."<br /><br />We could have done even worse. Had the anti-AGW-reality people not overreached, I mean. They set out to attack all science, period. Attacked peer review, attacked consensus, attacked data gathering, attacked modeling.<br /><br />I still buy Joe Romm's idea of how we can wedge ourselves out of the ditch, even though thanks to science denialism and delayism we've been spinning ourselves down deeper.<br /><br />I also think eventually we'll get support for cartoonish, unscientific reasons reminiscent of "The Day after Tomorrow." The wheel's starting to turn finally.<br /><br />Out in the real world, I find people vastly more responsive to science facts now than they were 5 years ago. That may be an artifact of where I live, I suppose.Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-50799037763356999492011-04-09T15:59:56.405-07:002011-04-09T15:59:56.405-07:00On a sad note, Grypo raises a good point; how bull...On a sad note, Grypo raises a good point; how bulletproof can/need they be?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-62013923198193607592011-04-09T15:57:12.536-07:002011-04-09T15:57:12.536-07:00"People listen to voices they like"
I l...<i>"People listen to voices they like"</i><br /><br />I like Stephen Pacala <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP9gpLbs9e0&feature=relmfu" rel="nofollow">talking about uncertainty to a room of engineers</a>. Punchy, funny, politically incorrect, shoot from the hip style.<br /><br />Generally, confidence, concision, and voice modulation work for me.<br /><br /><i>"the wrong thing to do is to have science look like ideology, for scientists to be seen to cozy up to people with ideological and political agendas"</i><br /><br />Listening to scientists from outside the home country may help, from India and China as a curveball for Morano, to screw the political radar, to negate local snobbery/competition, and to emphasize the international nature and the scale of science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-80971373746760016762011-04-09T06:08:54.859-07:002011-04-09T06:08:54.859-07:00Steven wants to discuss names, so let's do so....Steven wants to discuss names, so let's do so. I think Alley is the best communicator, and Santer has different qualities, but you are very correct about his passion. This might be useful. But tell me; what happens when these people stick their necks out too far? We already know what happened to Santer when it turns out he was smart enough to find human fingerprints on the greenhouse back in the '90s. It's also more pertinent, in this conversation, to mention what happens more recently when you all decided to "audit" Santer's work and he refused to provide access to his email account. It sure turned out that he was into the bunker mentality, right? What happens when a request for Alley's data can't be fulfilled? Does he get the same treatment as fellow glaciologist, Lonnie Thompson? Or does this only happen when their work turns out to be iconic, like Mann's? Or Hansen? Is there a scale where iconic status = amount of abuse? Tell us, since it is undoubtedly up to your peer-review-group, who is listened to by this undefined group of 'rednecks' for who is dismissed as obstructionists, liars, bunker mentality-types; who is perfect enough to fit the bill? Who, when audited or has an email hack or whatever, will be used as a poster boy for the scientific destruction, and whose minor mistakes will be dismissed as being human, like you, and me, human, like, imperfect, and prone to poor errors of judgment, especially under unique circumstances. Who gets the pass? Who gets assassinated? How about Steig? No, he's a sandbagger. So my question to you, McIntyre, Lucia, Watts is very simple. Since you all are the trusted names that will be the gatekeepers to who these people (rednecks?) trust or not -- who are the great communicators, who are also angels, and who also cataloged all their data going back to the pencil paper days? Those are the names I'm interested in. But we all know these names don't exist. Because someone will find something. Some people are very much aware of Alinski's rules for radicals. <br /><br />So really, don't expect anyone here to believe that these perfect people exist, or if they do, don't expect them to act magnanimous, or crawl out from under the bunker, or stick their neck out too far. There's a long track record for those that do. They become part the "communication problem" Unfortunately, it's the people that do this that deserve our highest respect, especially now, especially when they are very aware of what will happen when they do, and also have a good idea where and who it's going to come from.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-59518043643644541882011-04-09T05:50:06.957-07:002011-04-09T05:50:06.957-07:00Steven Mosher is correct...
"the discussion ...Steven Mosher is correct...<br /><br /><i>"the discussion will go better if people just focus on what MT said"</i><br /><br />... asking who makes a good communicator... is a more interesting discussion than... asking what a bad person Mosher is<br />... it is also a more useful discussion for 'our side'<br />... note that the one derailing this useful discussion for 'our side'... is not Mosher the "propagandist"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-30790007132489936882011-04-09T05:21:36.619-07:002011-04-09T05:21:36.619-07:00Guys, if you try telling a scientist not to...
a) ...Guys, if you try telling a scientist not to...<br />a) highlight data that they think is interesting, important and <b>correct</b><br />b) not to write something which they think is interesting, important and <b>correct</b><br />... you're asking them to break their professional ethics<br />... because of the involvement of some individuals you don't like<br />... don't do a) because it's from person c)<br />... don't do b) because person c) likes what you wrote<br />... or even b) is wrong because c) likes it... what nonsense is that?<br />... what do you think their reaction will be?<br />The archetypal truth-seeking-wherever-it-may-lead brutal honesty (you liked that when it came to Curry, right?) is why the public rank trust in science above certain professions where the type of <b>dishonest</b> soccer team cheerleading PR you're asking Michael to engage in is known to be more frequent or has more exposure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-36057395144180928932011-04-09T00:33:20.708-07:002011-04-09T00:33:20.708-07:00OK, I'll hit the nail on the head: A major sec...OK, I'll hit the nail on the head: A major sector of the propagandists for the other side (as represented by Mosher) like what you had to say here.<br /><br />#####<br /> SteveB. There is much MT said that I disagree with here. I considered discussing that. Instead, I thought it would be nice to find points of agreement. You know, there is much that say, zeke and I disagree about, but we just choose not to talk about that stuff and we just choose to talk about the stuff we do agree about. I thought MT has put enough hard work into his endeavor that I owed him civility in his own damn house, this blog. <br />I don't ask him to pull any punches about what he or his readers say about me. but I'm here, I'll try to find points of agreement. If that's unsettling to you, well, then its unsettling to you. Not much I can do about that. I won't, as I promised him, discuss certain matters, except if people misconstrue my position. Seriously, the discussion will go better if people just focus on what MT said.stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06920897530071011399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-87737217494457564962011-04-09T00:23:35.831-07:002011-04-09T00:23:35.831-07:00MT,
yes, I get Julian. I also get RMS.
Having...MT,<br /><br /> yes, I get Julian. I also get RMS.<br /> Having had to work a bit with the <br /> latter, I found no issues understanding him completely.<br /><br /> Anyway, rather than discussing my ethical idiosyncratic views, why not discuss the voices You like.stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06920897530071011399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-4339511671871934502011-04-09T00:15:43.367-07:002011-04-09T00:15:43.367-07:00Reality paging MT! Reality paging MT!
MT, this is...<b>Reality paging MT! Reality paging MT!</b><br /><br />MT, this is really going off the rails. If you seriously think there's a 'similarity' between someone who co-authored high-quality software and gave it away for free, and someone who co-authored a book filled with misrepresentation and made-up 'facts' -- because both have "idiosyncratic" moralities -- then your brand of "pragmatism" has serious issues.<br /><br />Really, <em>is this what your search for 'common ground' has descended to?</em><br /><br />And if you think cosying up to your adversaries, <em>while actively pushing away your would-be allies at every possible turn</em>, is a recipe for "victory" -- then your brand of "pragmatism" has really, really serious issues.<br /><br />-- <a href="http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-3209484486816109552011-04-09T00:14:15.796-07:002011-04-09T00:14:15.796-07:00Dehog.
I agreed with MT not to discuss certain is...Dehog.<br /><br />I agreed with MT not to discuss certain issues here. I will not discuss those issues in particular<br />but i will point out your errors.<br /><br />"Actually it does become hard when people like yourself try to categorize them of being emblematic as to why all of climate science is a fraud."<br /><br />1. In my first ever comment on the web about climate science that I have been able to find ( on RC) I made it clear that I accept the fundamental science of AGW. Nothing has changed that.<br /><br />2. I was very clear in my book to say that the mails do not change the science.<br /><br />3. I limited my critique to 3 or 4 individuals. I was explicit in arguing that we were talking about a few individuals and a couple of PROCESS issues.<br /><br />4. I have offered some remedies that others have found reasonable, primarily the investigations.<br /><br />5. I wrote a piece that was published on a right wing blog that explained that the behavior I was concerned about was not fraud and did not change the science. <br /><br />Now, Perhaps we can return to the discussion MT wanted to have. I could very easily as he notes disguise who I am. Here is something funny. For 4 years I have spent a good amount of time explaining to skeptics that AGW science is solid. And yes, I've said some critical things about some individuals. Now, I'm saying some nice things about other individuals. Tim Palmer struck me as a fine human being> after watching hours of his presentations I'm impressed with his presentation skills, his on camera persona, his carriage, his wit and of course his expertise. And I liked Ben Santer's fire and his earnestness. I said so at the time I watched him. I also liked Alley, a lot. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong about them. This isnt a game. there is no gotcha.stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06920897530071011399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-52784303637683803032011-04-08T23:57:25.306-07:002011-04-08T23:57:25.306-07:00Dehog
"
Oh, and ... Mosher, do you still bel...Dehog<br /><br />"<br />Oh, and ... Mosher, do you still believe that we owe nothing to future generations, and shouldn't take their needs into consideration?"<br /><br />Actually, what I argued was that my obligations future generations were discounted by time. Simply, that my obligations to my children are larger than my obligations to my grandchildren, and they are larger than my obligations to my great grand children, and so on. Simply, by the time one looks far enough ahead the obligations are effectively zero. And I beleive I suggested that this was a position not unknown in the literature on intergenerational justice. <br /><br />So its best to go back and read what I wrote EXACTLY and pay attention to the exact words<br />Let me quote for dehog<br /><br />""Mosher has proposed another escape, which is that our ethical responsibilities have a sort of a discount rate; that we have no ethical obligations to distand [sic] descendants. "<br /><br />well,our obligations most certainly do. You can google intergeneration justice for starters and see the rich set of positions on our obligations to future generations, discounts usually apply for those systems where ethical decisions have a cost benefit component, or even I think I could argue, in a rawlsian egalitarian approach. Or, you could apply the golden rule and say I have no obligation to people born after I die. I cannot do unto others if they cannot do unto me.<br />One could, some have, made those arguments.<br />What you need to note here is that our ethical obligations are far less certain than the science we are arguing about. And somebody who argues that I have ethical obligations to the humans of 2300, is as strange to me as someone who argues that a mother has ethical obligations to a clump of cells growing in her uterus.Or somebody who argues that infanticide is ok ( See singer)<br /><br />So, while I think we do have ethical obligations to humans living now, I think those obligations carry more weight than my obligations to those living in 2100, and they have more weight than those living in 2300, and I have no obligation to those who may be alive when the sun burns out. Which means I have no obligation to bear the cost of finding those creatures a new planet to live on.<br />I have no obligation to the humans who will be living in the US when Yellowstone blows. So, I would expend no money to try to prevent or adapt to that disaster."<br /><br />########<br /> You will note that I say "one could make certain arguments" You see, you might think it is an ethical certainty that I have moral obligations to people alive in 2100. I don't find that to be an ethical certitude. For me it is far more certain that I should alleviate suffering today. This is why, for example, I would choose, as I do, to volunteer my time and resources to people unrelated to to me today, rather than, for example, putting resources ( money) away for my grandchildren or great grand children. The idea that we have ethical obligations to living humans that differ from our obligations to humans who are not born yet, for example, is something that seems intuitive to some people.stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06920897530071011399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-51780299327244210432011-04-08T23:27:18.542-07:002011-04-08T23:27:18.542-07:00Speaking of deep-time paleo, here's the press ...Speaking of deep-time paleo, here's the <a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ancient-fossils-hold-clues-for-199756.aspx" rel="nofollow">press release</a> for a fresh paper on early Pliocene climate in the Canadian high Arctic. CO2 at the time was no higher than currently. The high temps found, extreme though they are (well, if you like ice at the poles), aren't really a surprise; the important thing is the neat confirmation of the isotopic analysis methods since these will have wide application at numerous other sites.<br /><br />People sometimes ask where the Feynmans are in climate science. The team leader for this paper, Aradhna Tripati (Santa Cruz PhD at 22), is certainly one of them.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-71271958734044195032011-04-08T22:57:18.555-07:002011-04-08T22:57:18.555-07:00Minor correction on Mooney... "Now I’m inclin...Minor correction on Mooney... "Now I’m inclined to think that another form of culture war is underway that is definitely not healthy for a constructive dialogue" on anything.<br /><br />Is this the mess you predicted to come about?Oalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14032383453035968859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-23499894123229781102011-04-08T22:39:22.022-07:002011-04-08T22:39:22.022-07:00dhog, many people have warned me not to trust Mosh...dhog, many people have warned me not to trust Mosher. And I don't.<br /><br />But if he were truly a psychopathic liar, why would he admit that we owe nothing to future generations? (I remember that assertion as well.) A psychopath as smart as Mosher would lie or duck the question.<br /><br />I think he is one of those odd fellows (they are usually male) with a strong and well thought out but bizarre and idiosyncratic morality. Note that Julian Assange is in the same category (at least when he is not around women). So, less obviously but more clearly, is Richard Stallman, to whom the whole of civilization owes a great deal, even if we find ourselves unwilling to follow his example. <br /><br />As a pragmatist this is the opposite to my type and would be threatening even without the astonishing history.<br /><br />However Mosher is not boring. Unlike most of them. Lucia, for instance, is being particularly tedious in my direction this week. <br /><br />You may not like the way Mosher thinks, nor the way he has behaved. I don't. But I invariably find him interesting. My intent is to make my web efforts interesting as well as informative. If Mosher (or someone doing a good job pretending to be Mosher) wishes to contribute, I can't really stop him anyway. All he needs is another identity. <br /><br />In short, in any practical sense I can only moderate the words in the submissions. I would like more interesting challenges. The pickings on the other side tend to be rather thin, and the few smart opponents tend to wander off. <br /><br />I welcome the challenge, not that I want him dating my sister.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-65412322073693688992011-04-08T21:42:58.182-07:002011-04-08T21:42:58.182-07:00"Please note, I was civil enough to avoid exp..."Please note, I was civil enough to avoid explaining why certain high profile people were horrible spokespeople. The communication problem is not that hard"<br /><br />Actually it does become hard when people like yourself try to categorize them of being emblematic as to why all of climate science is a fraud.<br /><br />For profit.<br /><br />Mosher's recent attempts (over the last year or so) to try to appear as a neutral observer is sickening.<br /><br />Oh, and ... Mosher, do you still believe that we owe nothing to future generations, and shouldn't take their needs into consideration?<br /><br />(and, MT, this is not a "are you still beating you're wife" ploy, if SM denies, I'll do the google until I find his quotes)dhogazahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13589109126483161671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-87705795508760436012011-04-08T21:37:47.314-07:002011-04-08T21:37:47.314-07:00This is kinda a personal question for MT:
Do you ...This is kinda a personal question for MT:<br /><br />Do you have *any* reason to believe that *anything* Mosher says is sincere?<br /><br />If snakes and coyotes really had the kind of morality displayed in years past (and not so past) as "Piltdown Mann" Mosher, I'd actually transform my morals and shoot them on sight, rather than cherish them despite their at times annoying actions.<br /><br />Kissy-up with Stephen "Piltdown Mann" Mosher is useful?<br /><br />Get real.<br /><br />He's on record (and making money on) the position that the most visible parts of climate science is a fraud.dhogazahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13589109126483161671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-15722096330362312162011-04-08T21:26:17.405-07:002011-04-08T21:26:17.405-07:00Speaking of deep-time paleo, here's the press ...Speaking of deep-time paleo, here's the <a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ancient-fossils-hold-clues-for-199756.aspx" rel="nofollow">press release</a> for a fresh paper on early Pliocene climate in the Canadian high Arctic. CO2 at the time was no higher than currently. The high temps found, extreme though they are (well, if you like ice at the poles), aren't really a surprise; the important thing is the neat confirmation of the isotopic analysis methods since these will have wide application at numerous other sites.<br /><br />People sometimes ask where the Feynmans are in climate science. The team leader for this paper, Aradhna Tripati (Santa Cruz PhD at 22), is certainly one of them.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-19602768550664841332011-04-08T17:18:29.655-07:002011-04-08T17:18:29.655-07:00Tombo said: "It's not the politics, it...Tombo said: "It's not the politics, it's the proposed 'solutions' that drive the opposition."<br /><br />And I would say that it's not climate science that drives the opposition either. But the opposition tends to paint with a broad brush.<br /><br />I have to agree with Tombo on one point at least. The green agenda goes way beyond clean energy.<br /><br />Was there really any question that many on the contrarian side reject AGW because "if Al Gore says it, I'm against it"? Would a conservative figure do any better? I imagine the moment such a person dared speak the truth, they'd become an instant pariah.<br /><br />(Aside: I find it annoying that "skeptic" has become synonymous with "preclusive", "insular" and "parochial".)seamushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04299590041498402002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-6725890660161766882011-04-08T13:13:06.835-07:002011-04-08T13:13:06.835-07:00Tombo, note that Jim Hansen says it's paleo, o...Tombo, note that Jim Hansen says it's paleo, obs and models, in that order. Models are needed to tell us about the timing and distribution of effects, bearing in mind that there's no close paleo precedent for the transient forcing we're currently applying to the climate system, but even without the models we would still know we had a very large problem. The paleo refers to the deep-time stuff, not the late Holocene "hockey stick." This material sees little discussion on "skeptic" sites. More unfortunately, it gets very little discussion in the media notwithstanding the quite horrific implications. <br /><br />A good place to start is the seminal paper of a few years ago (note how recent! -- this is because it took a long time for the paleo evidence to be gathered and analyzed), Hansen et al.'s "Target Atmospheric CO2." You can find a free pdf via Google Scholar, then check the citations for more recent stuff. <br /><br />Add to the paleo work the ongoing research trying to characterize the feedbacks associated with the fast melt of the cryosphere, already underway, e.g. a paper from just a few weeks ago showing that a runaway melt of the permafrost likely has already started. That will probably only amount to a direct injection of ~100 ppm CO2 equivalent this century, but worse things cannot be excluded.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-43846774081003661172011-04-08T12:46:02.144-07:002011-04-08T12:46:02.144-07:00"Why should your list (of all people's) o..."Why should your list (of all people's) of spokespeople be of interest to the community?"<br /><br /> Does somebody here want to say that Ben Santer wasn't a great witness before congress? I thought he was a great presence. Not so much what he said, but how he presented himself. That's not concern trolling. That's my professional assessment of his performance. Same with the others I mentioned. You want the opinion of somebody who spent some time in PR having to decide who was going to represent? cool. Of all the people I have met in person or watched, I gave you my list. I find those people to be personable and good on camera. no more, no less. <br /><br />why should that interest people?<br /><br />I dunno, It seems to me that a discussion about how and who presents the story should get down to particulars. There's not much point in generalized discussions about it. So, I throw out a list. Somebody else could also start the discussion. But particulars are way more interesting than generalities. So, instead of explaining what I dont like about XYZ (which would make everybody defensive) I figured it was best to start with personalities I like or one that I believe other people would like. You don't like Tim palmer? suggest another personality type. I think he's a very likeable sort of person. Hans Von Storch, the appeal is a bit different. Alley, the appeal was his passion and love and exuberence. <br /><br />get it yet?<br /><br />And no, I'm not trying to trick you into anything. Not trying to get you to say "I dont like XYZ" You can just ignore it, or add your own, or agree. But it is interesting that you have such a hard time discussing specifics.<br />I did not anticipate that.stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06920897530071011399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-89465912968032524792011-04-08T10:44:16.989-07:002011-04-08T10:44:16.989-07:00Tombo, you are quite confused on some major scient...Tombo, you are quite confused on some major scientific points, as a bit of serious research outside your epistemic borders might indicate. To address them all in a comments section is asking a bit much.<br /><br />I do intend to take on this sort of question fairly soon, as I believe I have some things to add. if you'd like to see my version of all this, please stay tuned and be patient. What you are asking for can't be tossed off in an instant, precisely because climatology is a real science.<br /><br />Meanwhile there have been many earnest attempts to answer all of those questions. I suggest you go looking outside of snarkville for them.<br /><br />Thank you for confirming that the involvement of Mr. Gore was not helpful in convincing you. I think many people who understand the science and its implications don't understand that.<br /><br />Gore is right, of course, that the science part should not be a partisan issue. But it isn't clear that he's the right person to say it.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-7857620643555617042011-04-08T10:23:03.231-07:002011-04-08T10:23:03.231-07:00Michael,
Do you believe most liberals could reall...Michael,<br /><br />Do you believe most liberals could really be completely rational about a subject whose biggest spokesman was GWB? <br /><br />Even to the point of publicly supporting it?<br /><br />Do you believe this would have no influence on potential supporters who were liberals?<br /><br />Gore was the best and worst thing that ever happened to AGW.<br /><br />The first step to better communication is to give a little respect to the opposition. The belittling strategy does not appear to be working.<br /><br />Many skeptics such as myself are technically skilled and agree on many of the points you support. The divergence occurs as to proof of man being a major influence, and more specifically the efficacy of the climate models. The future of the climate has been remotely "proven".<br /><br />My judgment is that we do not have the capability to forecast climate successfully, which leads to a position of no action until they are validated.<br /><br />Being ridiculed for different value judgments hardens positions. I'm not particularly persuaded by arguments to authority.<br /><br />Write about the weaknesses of climate science and what is being done about them, not the strengths. e.g. Why should I trust climate models? How can we validate them without waiting 30 years?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09947334232814497102noreply@blogger.com