tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post7688528127595856020..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: In Defense of RevkinMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-17326051815292927222009-10-16T16:26:05.721-07:002009-10-16T16:26:05.721-07:00This is very impolite, but after suffering through...This is very impolite, but after suffering through one Revkin faux pas after another (the Will / Gore piece, the "global cooling" piece, the recent attention to Steve McIntyre's nonsense, etc.), I am inclined to view him as just a guy who likes to stir the pot periodically to try to drive his readership / comments numbers. He is supposed to be an uber expert on reporting the science in this field, and yet he continues to act like there's still a real dispute in the science, and that demonstrably false views (i.e., lies) are entitled to get equal time with the truth (if not more). I canceled my RSS feed to Dot Earth a while ago, since it was just so frustrating.LChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13887748571254484441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-59270502989953534982009-10-16T12:54:19.279-07:002009-10-16T12:54:19.279-07:00I had several exchanges with Michael May early on,...I had several exchanges with Michael May early on, he was really a rarity among the "conservatives" who visited Dot Earth, but as I recall he was convinced of the reality of anthropogenic global warming already when that blog started, so if Revkin convinced him it must have been through previous writings.<br /><br />The real unknown is the effect all those discussions had on lurkers...<br /><br />One positive for me was it spurred me to write my little anti-Gerlich&Tscheuschner "proof of the greenhouse effect" paper which seems to have helped clarify things for a few other people too..Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-89120058614505727262009-10-16T12:01:12.445-07:002009-10-16T12:01:12.445-07:00Now that's a dot-earth firefox plugin I could ...Now that's a dot-earth firefox plugin I could get behind.<br /><br />Realistically it's too much work for Revkin, but it could be crowd-sourced.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-22362787476947740152009-10-16T11:45:22.827-07:002009-10-16T11:45:22.827-07:00Needed: annotation by Andy Revkin at Dot.Earth, w...Needed: annotation by Andy Revkin at Dot.Earth, with three little icons, indicating Andy Revkin's opinion about each of his regular readers' claimed-belief postings:<br /><br />“confirmed”, <br />“need further research” and <br />“debunked”<br /><br />Wait til their 10th wild claim first, don't embarrass anyone who's new or educable.<br /><br />But after the Kth iteration of "the Arctic is cooling" -- iconize it.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-91437309187596848142009-10-16T11:07:06.672-07:002009-10-16T11:07:06.672-07:00Also "writing and blogging"?
Blogging i...Also "writing <em>and</em> blogging"?<br /><br />Blogging isn't writing? A revealing turn of phrase.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-67620680444818937742009-10-16T10:39:29.974-07:002009-10-16T10:39:29.974-07:00What little data we have (on Dot Earth's influ...What little data we have (on Dot Earth's influence on doubters) isn't promising:<br /><br />I was active in Dot Earth's comments section for a year or so - 2007-2008 - and my recollection from that time is that Michael May was the *only* commenter there who did in fact announce his views had changed.<br /><br />(which isn't to say that it didn't help lurkers, or subsequent unnamed commenters - but I don't have this info.) <br /><br />My recollection (perhaps faulty) is that I and others repeatedly suggested that the NYT collect data on readers/commenters' views, to measure how well they were reaching them, and offered to help with the project, but there was no discernible interest.<br /><br />(Also, FYI, Andy at one point said he'd had an email exchange with Greg Craven - we begged him to feature Craven in a Dot Earth blog post, again - to my recollection - to no avail.)<br /><br />(If anyone has better recollections than me, please provide them! I may be confusing wishes with actual communication, to some extent.)Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-18183463034188092282009-10-16T09:18:08.040-07:002009-10-16T09:18:08.040-07:00I think we have to take this in two parts:
First,...I think we have to take this in two parts:<br /><br />First, the Gore/Will debacle, which I agree is truly unforgivable from a journalistic standpoint.<br /><br />Second, while I have no problem with being evenhanded, I do object to doing it endlessly. While we are still unsure of the answer to any given question, then "fair and balanced" does indeed mean evenhanded treatment. But once we know the answer, then putting climate science and a relative handful of deniers on an equal footing is not "fair and balanced", it's being a tool of the deniers.<br /><br />When was the last time the HIV/AIDS deniers got evenhanded treatment by the major media? How about the "birthers" (the people pushing the idea that President Obama was not born in the US)? Or the "we really didn't land on the moon" people, or those who think smoking doesn't cause cancer? Eventually the climate change deniers will be relegated to that category, but in the short run they're still given a mystifying amount of credibility. And that delay in treating them appropriately is only hurting everyone, as it helps delay our response to the problem.Lou Grinzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17928280655354890269noreply@blogger.com