tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post6896367891166737423..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Dogs and DeniersMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-29396558438109508112011-01-18T21:26:25.314-08:002011-01-18T21:26:25.314-08:00And now for something completely different
http:/...And now for something completely different<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ieQfQUUc74Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-38089938011424767322011-01-17T11:19:00.948-08:002011-01-17T11:19:00.948-08:00A final word or two:
There is a difference betwee...A final word or two:<br /><br />There is a difference between the <em>"opinion of a scientist"</em> and <em>"scientific opinion"</em> which is often conflated either intentionally (denialist bloggers) or unintentionally (media, public).Ron Broberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00360356366869878444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-67841452695394981462011-01-15T07:34:33.497-08:002011-01-15T07:34:33.497-08:00nawagadj said...
MT, nice work over at Climate ...<i>nawagadj said...<br />MT, nice work over at Climate Etc. It takes the patience of a saint.</i><br /><br />Indeed, good on ya, MT (although the other comments made me sorry I looked).Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13955691670049830140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-10967168991002150072011-01-14T20:30:35.679-08:002011-01-14T20:30:35.679-08:00Still comes up Not Found but nevermind...Still comes up <i>Not Found</i> but nevermind...David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-4520188323600241072011-01-14T20:00:46.511-08:002011-01-14T20:00:46.511-08:00David, a glitch maybe? It still works for me.David, a glitch maybe? It still works for me.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-85386810305071257932011-01-14T19:32:03.095-08:002011-01-14T19:32:03.095-08:00Clicking on Grypo Saurus's version comes up No...Clicking on <b>Grypo Saurus's version</b> comes up <i>Not Found</i>.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-61321567991916383752011-01-14T13:25:04.407-08:002011-01-14T13:25:04.407-08:00Thanks very much, Nick. That's very encouragin...Thanks very much, Nick. That's very encouraging.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-86353149798710804952011-01-14T13:17:17.464-08:002011-01-14T13:17:17.464-08:00If I may interject my very humble opinion on somet...If I may interject my very humble opinion on something that is, seemingly oftentimes, overlooked when viewing how to "get through" to deniers/skeptics/Skeptics, I doubt very much that I am alone when I say that I learned a great deal about the "debate(s)" and argumentative styles in general simply by reading and rarely or never participating. I'm not the smartest guy in the room, so what I have to say rarely would improve the silence on this forum and several others. But I should not be forgotten and one of the reasons I came to accepting AGW and its implications is because MT and others were able to get their point across to me without ever addressing me. People learn in a lot of different ways. People are drawn to different debate styles and tones. Proponents do not have a collective voice or tactic, and this is not necessarily always a negative. I have learned by reading the back and forth (among other ways). Again, I doubt I'm alone. So my point would be that just because the person or group you are speaking to has selective hearing/reading, that does not mean the things you are saying are ineffective. I have done my fair share of debating/arguing in the trenches of non-science oriented sites and other platforms. When doing so I get frustrated and at times want to give up. It helps me to keep in mind that people can see these conversations and are basing their opinions on them. Thanks.Nick Dearthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14127455354525847577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-64238495100644775722011-01-14T11:42:23.048-08:002011-01-14T11:42:23.048-08:00Ron, perhaps we are crazy enough as a species that...Ron, perhaps we are crazy enough as a species that even a plethora of obvious bad impacts won't cause us to act to avoid even worse such impacts in the future, but I'm hopeful that things are otherwise.<br /><br />I agree that there's nothing inherently bad about a Pliocene-like climate, but would say rather that the danger to us is in our response to the stress of the transition. We have lots of weapons, and starving people will do anything they can to not starve. The difficulty with a Pliocene-like climate is that the places we currently like to grow food largely will cease to be good for that purpose. Other places will become good in terms of annual average temperature, but things like more extreme seasonality and poor soil quality will make that a very poor exchange. Add to that a collapse of ocean fisheries.<br /><br />I would add that if you're right and we continue with BAU for the rest of this century, much worse things than a bumpy transition to a Pliocene-like climate are in store, e.g. tropical temperatures incompatible with human physiology.<br /><br />Finally, IMHO saying we must reduce back to 350 ppm CO2 is not policy advocacy, although promotion of any given path to that goal is.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-46407980803287224672011-01-14T11:26:38.173-08:002011-01-14T11:26:38.173-08:00Not going to happen, Francis. Paleoclimate trumps...Not going to happen, Francis. Paleoclimate trumps every one of those. Besides, have you not noticed the execrably bad science that gets defended by the deniers? Even when they follow the rules, as with the recent critique of Steig et al., they try really hard to conflate "broadly confirms" with "refutes."Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-66481024622743403972011-01-14T09:45:44.257-08:002011-01-14T09:45:44.257-08:00Francis:
People who think that uncertainty is onl...Francis:<br /><br />People who think that uncertainty is only for others are <em>simply not</em> "skeptics", whether the word is in capitals, small letters, initial caps, CamelCase, etc.<br /><br />If you really think a different word is needed, again I'll propose <a href="https://iji2.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/book-under-my-radar-labels-on-your-cheddar/" rel="nofollow">"inactivists"</a>.<br /><br />-- <a href="http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-33920891871250399212011-01-14T09:33:31.034-08:002011-01-14T09:33:31.034-08:00MT:
Anyway. Maybe it's not the job of scienti...MT:<br /><br />Anyway. Maybe it's not the job of scientists to go around digging up dirt on anti-science politicians, but they can -- and should -- state clearly to the public what their science is, and how this science translates to policy choices for health and safety. And we should lend our full support to every scientist who does so.<br /><br />-- <a href="http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-5827668606484035242011-01-14T09:33:21.994-08:002011-01-14T09:33:21.994-08:00MT: I'm reposting here an edited version of a...MT: I'm reposting here an edited version of a comment I just made at Kloor's place, to wit:<br /><br />In the spirit of reducing unnecessary aggravation, I propose replacing the word “denier” with the word “Skeptic”, capitalized as to distinguish ordinary skepticism (eg, what is the expected short-term response to a doubling of CO2) from the kind of Skepticism demonstrated in various places.<br /> <br />It would be really nice if the Skeptics [like you, Tom] started their own Skeptical Science website, in parallel and opposition to the existing Skeptical Science website. (Skeptical squared?) It seems to me that the best opportunity for a useful discussion is for the Skeptics to start making positive claims, like “The Sun is insufficiently well understood”, or “Cloud formation may drive the sensitivity of the atmosphere’s response to the low end”, or “The urban heat island effect has not been sufficiently addressed.”Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04627209966458752998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-90029532992654243632011-01-14T09:26:11.038-08:002011-01-14T09:26:11.038-08:00MT:
Another thing: I see a possible confusion in ...MT:<br /><br />Another thing: I see a possible confusion in the use of the word "advocate". On a scientific issue, one can <em>advocate</em> for taking rational action based on the existing science, or one can <em>advocate</em> for a particular theory.<br /><br />-- <a href="http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-35111433107353319692011-01-14T09:20:19.876-08:002011-01-14T09:20:19.876-08:00MT:
"Ron is confused in thinking that scienc...MT:<br /><br />"Ron is confused in thinking that science is a stakeholder in any reasonable approach to policy. Science is needed as a neutral consultant in policy."<br /><br />But as James Hansen recognized, scientists are also citizens, and as citizens, they're very definitely stakeholders. Are climatologists supposed to fool themselves into thinking that they're only studying climate science 'from the outside' -- and that they won't themselves be impacted by the policies resulting from the use (or misuse) of their science?<br /><br />And you can't really do science without scientists.<br /><br />"Once science becomes a stakeholder in policy (by being threatened with funds cutoffs, unfunded mandates, subpoenas and accusations which at least approach libel) you can be pretty sure you are doing it desperately wrong."<br /><br />I don't get this. If powerful people insist on bending science agencies to produce only results they 'like', it's the scientists' fault? Moreover, scientists, like other citizens, have the right to petition.<br /><br />-- <a href="http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-5438367438161465502011-01-14T08:04:57.638-08:002011-01-14T08:04:57.638-08:00MT,
nice work over at Climate Etc. It takes the ...MT,<br /><br />nice work over at Climate Etc. It takes the patience of a saint.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-23029454324286950352011-01-14T06:59:07.008-08:002011-01-14T06:59:07.008-08:00Frank doesn't really explain the puppies.
Ron...Frank doesn't really explain the puppies.<br /><br />Ron does a good job of distinguishing between the two questions: 1) what is going on and 2) what to do about it, then comes right back and conflates them.<br /><br />As I see it, the role of science is 1) to convey what is going on, and 2) to participate as a resource in what to do about it.<br /><br />Ron is confused in thinking that science is a stakeholder in any reasonable approach to policy. Science is needed as a neutral consultant in policy. <br /><br />Once science becomes a stakeholder in policy (by being threatened with funds cutoffs, unfunded mandates, subpoenas and accusations which at least approach libel) you can be pretty sure you are doing it desperately wrong.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-17902908102217400842011-01-14T05:11:27.721-08:002011-01-14T05:11:27.721-08:00Ron Broberg:
"Of course, if policy isn't...Ron Broberg:<br /><br />"Of course, if policy isn't your target, and you just want climate science to be respected, you *have* to cede the policy ground."<br /><br />'Respect' as in 'hey climate scientists, we won't harass you with bullshit subpoenas, as long as you allow us to ignore all your studies and keep burning more oil'? That sure doesn't sound like respect to me!<br /><br />* * *<br /><br />"What I am trying to point out (by taking up defense of a point or two from a "puppy") is that by dismissing *their* concerns, you dismiss the possibility of meeting *them* halfway. [...]<br /><br />"*They* attack the science because *they* fear the policies."<br /><br />This is false -- or, more precisely, less than half true. The stated 'concerns' of the Koch brothers, CFACT, Heartland, etc. do <em>not</em> directly correspond to what they really want.<br /><br />My guess is this: what politics players <em>really</em> want can usually be boiled down to a few things:<br /><br />(1) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$<br /><br />(2) opportunities to make $$$$$$$$$$$<br /><br />(3) lack of any scandals which may seriously damage their reputations<br /><br />(4) good food and fine wine<br /><br />(5) um, maybe sex?<br /><br />Which, in a sense, is why stealing stuff works, especially when nobody gets caught -- SwiftHack being a case in point. If you can steal stuff without being caught, you get more stuff, which means more political bargaining chips which you can use to bolster your position.<br /><br />-- <a href="http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-69259399744419014282011-01-13T23:20:30.411-08:002011-01-13T23:20:30.411-08:00What I am trying to point out (by taking up defens...What I am trying to point out (by taking up defense of a point or two from a "puppy") is that by dismissing *their* concerns, you dismiss the possibility of meeting *them* halfway.<br /><br />Now, if you really want a political policy, you are playing the weaker hand - because *they* don't. Negotiation means you have to offer *them* something in return for receiving something.<br /><br />And if you are hoping that a series of bad weather/climate events will snap everyone out of *their* silliness and you can respond by offering a climate policy with the the promise that it will prevent bad weather/climate, you will see your policies sent to the scrap heap because bad weather/climate will keep on coming despite your policies.<br /><br />*They* attack the science because *they* fear the policies. It's as simple as that. *They* won't stop until there is no possibility of a climate based policy. Maybe I'm overly fatalistic, but that's the way I see it.<br /><br />"Clean energy" - something that people will see the benefits of within their lifetimes - is probably the only policy option on the table. But I'm a pessimist on that front as well since I am firmly convinced that the human race will burn every tonne of coal that it can economically pull out of the ground except for a very few places cherished for natural or historical reasons.<br /><br />Of course, if policy isn't your target, and you just want climate science to be respected, you *have* to cede the policy ground. For the most part, politicians control the purse strings. Only if climate science is apolitical (in the sense of offering policy) is there any hope of avoiding a funding backlash. <br /><br />Boy! That's a mouthful! A good night to all!Ron Broberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00360356366869878444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-13774828463303015142011-01-13T22:58:57.467-08:002011-01-13T22:58:57.467-08:00Ron, your second point is the point I am making. N...Ron, your second point is the point I am making. None of this has anything to do with skepticism about the nature of the problem.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-88848549136389609512011-01-13T22:52:10.588-08:002011-01-13T22:52:10.588-08:00However (I continue) that does not make me a skept...However (I continue) that does not make me a skeptic of AGW. Being skeptical of "crisis politics" is not the same as being skeptical of climate science - although many conflate the two.Ron Broberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00360356366869878444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-11993976614161224292011-01-13T22:42:39.199-08:002011-01-13T22:42:39.199-08:00I basically agree with points 6 and 14-2.
Does an...I basically agree with points 6 and 14-2.<br /><br />Does anyone want to defend the idea that there is a politically acceptable, enforceable, international CO2 reduction plan?<br /><br />Would anyone like to point to scientific and/or IPCC studies that outline the benefits that might accrue with warming? Costs *and* benefits should be weighed together. And it might be there in the IPCC AR4 WGII stuff - I've read very little of that. Nor am I generally an optimist about the effects - but both sides need to be tallied fairly.<br /><br />The problem with the costs and benefits is that they will occur on a regional level where modeling might not be so dependable.<br /><br />Also, there might be a problem with looking at the costs of 'climate' change. Climate is defined as the average of weather - the integration of daily, monthly, annual weather. But crops respond to the extremes as much, if not more, than the averages. And climate models (or climatologists for that matter) don't seem so good at predicting extremes - floods in Pakistan etc - heat waves in Russia - cold snaps in Western Europe and East US. Understanding the extremes will probably be as necessary as understanding the average when it comes to completing the cost/benefit analysis.<br /><br />Fact is that the earth was under an entirely different climate regime as recently as 14,000 years ago. It will not be the end of the world if the effects are severe enough to push us all the way back into the Pliocene. And climate is only one stress both in human economies and natural biospheres. It would be sensible to reduce the source of the stress if some kind of *effective* policy can be implemented. Failing that, its gonna be about adaptation.Ron Broberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00360356366869878444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-92088244323173925802011-01-13T22:29:15.980-08:002011-01-13T22:29:15.980-08:00Please, guys, the "no more Fuller flame wars&...Please, guys, the "no more Fuller flame wars" side won over the "more Fuller flame war please" side. <br /><br />Let's just wish him well in his day job and let him wander off. Please and thanks?<br /><br />I don't want to moderate the whole blog on account of this. He means well, but he ends up being a troll for that. Don't feed him here.<br /><br />He's at the linked conversation at Lucia's. If you want to engage him, do it there.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-78946732534515835252011-01-13T22:15:51.595-08:002011-01-13T22:15:51.595-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.dhogazahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13589109126483161671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-78169635473933692702011-01-13T22:09:21.044-08:002011-01-13T22:09:21.044-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.dhogazahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13589109126483161671noreply@blogger.com