tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post7931733742281963065..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Grim amusementMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-8952233300863287372010-02-14T14:20:41.903-08:002010-02-14T14:20:41.903-08:00AMac,
So as not to clutter up the thread I've...AMac,<br /><br />So as not to clutter up the thread I've posted, subject to approval, a comment on <a href="http://amac1.blogspot.com/2009/12/stoat-s-first-debate-on-use-of-lake.html#comment-form" rel="nofollow">your blog</a> responding to your Tiljander comments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-73996898501431430052010-02-14T14:10:34.163-08:002010-02-14T14:10:34.163-08:00AMac,
Not having a firm grounding in the subject:...AMac,<br /><br /><i>Not having a firm grounding in the subject: would my claim #1 affect your confidence in my interpretation of issue #2?</i><br /><br />No. Both claims could be true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-64436425105927749512010-02-13T10:47:05.237-08:002010-02-13T10:47:05.237-08:00Thanks, Lazar. You've provided useful backgro...Thanks, Lazar. You've provided useful background and perspective.<br /><br />Re: Tiljander, a limited and brief analogy.<br /><br />Suppose "US Health Care Reform" is a topic that you haven't followed closely. I write an essay that makes two points:<br /><br />1. Speaker Pelosi has no interest in health care; she supports Pres. Obama's initiative because it is a stepping-stone to world government.<br /><br />2. The proposed medical device tax will have the unintended long-term consequences of increasing medicial costs, and/or lowering innovation.<br /><br />(What I said about Spkr. Pelosi is sheer fancy. My position on the device tax may or may not be "true," but I can make a detailed, reasoned case for it, with supporting links.)<br /><br />Not having a firm grounding in the subject: would my claim #1 affect your confidence in my interpretation of issue #2?<br /><br />I think it should, and it would.<br /><br />End of analogy.<br /><br />As you suggest, Mann's torturing of the Tiljander proxies oughtn't be big news, in and of itself. One sloppy paleoclimate reconstruction, another instance of crummy science, so what.<br /><br />It's the reactions of the broader AGW Consensus community that really matter. Those who defend the indefensible--because of whatever mix of ignorance, team loyalty, hubris, and confirmation bias--forfeit the presumption of trust on related issues.<br /><br />That's not just Nick Stokes (<a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/unexpurgated-reasons-to-refuse-data/#comment-33269" rel="nofollow">Lucia's, yesterday</a>) and Gavin Schmidt. It's many others as well (including Bob Grumbine, who commented earlier on this thread). <i>Nobody</i> is dissenting from the "party line."<br /><br />I've been surprised at the number of Lukewarmer commenters whose sentiments largely mirror my own.<br /><br />As I can, as my interest holds up, I'll look at the actual case for AGW, to the extent it's accessible to a layperson. Starting per MT's suggestion with IPCC WG1's report.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-7383954791356940292010-02-13T05:30:50.166-08:002010-02-13T05:30:50.166-08:00AMac
Thanks for the response. I think I now bette...AMac<br /><br />Thanks for the response. I think I now better understand where you're coming from.<br /><br /><i>"I hadn't paid that much attention to AGW before last fall"</i><br /><br />Bear in mind the reactions you observe are shaped by *a lot* of history... most of it unpleasant. PR efforts to distort the science have left people feeling angry and defensive, myself included.<br /><br /><i>"what's the balance of truthyness, among the sides?"</i><br /><br />I don't think it is possible to gauge 'truthyness' without engaging the literature as a whole. I really doubt meta debate blowups like Tiljander matter much except in the PR sphere. E.g what happens to a consensus position if you throw Tiljander on the fire? The whole study on the fire? Everything by Mann? Every paleo-reconstruction?<br /><br />To my judgment Mann and Jones have both behaved dishonestly -- Mann in his ultra-defensive refusal to admit error, Jones whilst digging himself deeper in the FOI kerfuffle. I would say the same for Lucia and McIntyre, e.g. Lucia's interminable dodging of Nick Stoke's simple request <a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/multi-model-mean-projection-rejects-gisstemp-start-dates-50-60-70-80/#comments" rel="nofollow">here</a>, and McIntyre's green carding of Douglass et al. But can I judge 'what the science says' from any of these issues? Hell no. Can I extrapolate to the whole field from Mann and Jones? Hell no.<br /><br /><i>"I'm slowly learning some of the AGW science, which is important as far as what public policy should be."</i><br /><br />Much more fun, interesting, and enlightening than the public brawling.<br /><br /><i>"responding by, effectively, spitting in their critic's face? That's different!"</i><br /><br />There's a media spotlight on AGW. I know of much <i>much</i> worse in another and completely unrelated field, seriously litigious :-)<br /><br />I see a mountain of evidence supporting consensus positions on e.g. climate sensitivity and detection. I see a molehill of scientific evidence against. Outside of the literature, I see a large PR campaign to distort consensus-supporting science, real boneheaded stuff e.g. Watts and Morano. I see more sophisticated efforts picking issues with consensus science *alone*, e.g. McIntyre, but not following those issues through to publication and therefore not following through to effect sizes, e.g. Tiljander, YAD06, high latitude surface stations. I view the latter as of limited use to furthering the science and falling in a somewhat grey area between science and PR, and the concentration on alleged flaws in consensus science alone producing an estimate of 'the truth' which is biased. I daresay that this outlook is shared by many on the consensus 'side'. Therefore, even if you disagree, you can hopefully grok our frame of reference.<br /><br />TW says: unhaiteAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-18633811853249055482010-02-12T19:03:54.011-08:002010-02-12T19:03:54.011-08:00Lazar --
I missed your response of Feb. 11, 2010 ...Lazar --<br /><br />I missed your response of Feb. 11, 2010 3:09 PM till now.<br /><br />> the "Great Global Warming Swindle" [is] a piece of fraudulent, denialist, PR. Disagree? <br /><br />I haven't heard of it. Monckton? I'll rent it, when time permits.<br /><br />> do you disagree [that] two decades of disingenuous and often lying PR by politicians, [snip], and [snip] have influenced [public] opinion?<br /><br />Strip out the perjoratives, and you are surely right. Are the adjectives justified? I don't know. Based on more general knowledge of US politics... probably. But, what's the balance of truthyness, among the sides? I don't know that either. I'd tend to think that there's been more untruthfulness on the not-much-to-worry-about side, but that's a guess.<br /><br />> Are your experiences greatly different?<br /><br />Yes. Crazy though it sounds, I hadn't paid that much attention to AGW before last fall. If you'd pressed me, I would have said, "scientists are a pretty solid crowd and the consensus is probably well-founded, I'll go with that".AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-25845365342500648782010-02-12T14:32:34.527-08:002010-02-12T14:32:34.527-08:00Michael Tobis --
> The whole thing about &quo...Michael Tobis -- <br /><br />> The whole thing about "I disagree but if I were you and I wanted someone to agree I would..." is not exactly in the definition, but it is exasperating.<br /><br />OK, when I express my puzzlement over your stupid tactics, it exasperates you. How to respond? (a) "AMac, you won't get any more insight and your approach annoys, please move on", or (b) "AMac may be concern trolling a bit" (even if it's not exactly in the definition).<br /><br />You chose (b). That speaks volumes more about you.<br /><br />> I'd prefer you speaking for why you believe what you believe<br /><br />See below<br /><br />> and leave the cast confusion about how to handle the fiasco to those of us who are trying to do that.<br /><br />I have no idea what that means.<br /><br />I came to AGW a couple of months back, via learning about Mann's upside-down use of the Tiljander proxies. Scientists making dumb mistakes? Yawn, happens all the time. Scientists having obvious, glaring mistakes formally brought to their attention in PNAS, and responding by, effectively, spitting in their critic's face? That's different! Then having their colleagues and a passionate activist community defend their erroneous work and their blowoff of the criticisms? Wow! Something's really off the rails!<br /><br />At Lucia's and here, you have lamented the breakdown of public trust in the science that forecasts major and dire environmental changes to our climate.<br /><br />I think it's likely that some of the conspiracy theories that AGW Consensus advocates proclaim have some merit. They don't account for <i>my</i> newfound doubts about climate science -- your whinging about Concern Trolls notwithstanding. I started reading blogs on the subject, and found some sensible posters with generally sensible commenters. Who are able to manage their tempers and their self-righteousness, and offer generally <i>coherent</i> remarks while being (at least somewhat) civil to dissenters. Guess what? They are Lukewarmer blogs. <i>None</i> so far are in the AGW Consensus camp.<br /><br />This and other lines of evidence strongly suggest that something's wrong with (part of?) climate science, and that some of the consensus conclusions are not trustworthy. <br /><br />Jump to implementing drastic policy initiatives while the science is (seems to be?) in such disrepair? No thanks.<br /><br />(Disclaimer) This "why I believe what I believe" narrative is not evidence that the AGW Consensus position of the effects of GHG on temperature is wrong.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-64642344677637951172010-02-12T13:48:38.260-08:002010-02-12T13:48:38.260-08:00I did say "a bit".
The whole thing abo...I did say "a bit". <br /><br />The whole thing about "I disagree but if I were you and I wanted someone to agree I would..." is not exactly in the definition, but it is exasperating. <br /><br />A real concern troll would actually dishonestly pretend to agree.<br /><br />I'd prefer you speaking for why you believe what you believe, and leave the cast confusion about how to handle the fiasco to those of us who are trying to do that.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-79321252862464380602010-02-12T13:30:19.987-08:002010-02-12T13:30:19.987-08:00Frank Bi --
> OK, AMac. Here's the plain p...Frank Bi --<br /><br />> OK, AMac. Here's the plain prose. Which part of <i>"Over here we do things very, very, very differently -- more differently than you can imagine"</i> do you not understand?<br /><br />I understand the words, but do not understand the point you wish to make. What are the things that you do very differently? Express a deep faith in AGW Consensus-supporting scientists? Loathe Denialists? Live daily life according to the precepts of Sustainability? Hold the uninformed views of the Sheeple in contempt?<br /><br />Why should I be fascinated by this puzzle that you've set before me?<br /><br />At times, it seems that "you folks" are heedless about giving offense to people who would otherwise be neutral or even sympathetic to your cause. Recall, that was a topic of the Tobis/Simacs threads at Lucia's.<br /><br />Perhaps you figure that AGW Consensus science is so compelling that people like me will end up under your banner in the end, no matter what. So might as well work off a little steam in the meantime.<br /><br />I like to think that, in my case, you'd be right. But it still seems like poor tactics.<br /><br />- - - - -<br /><br />Michael Tobis --<br /><br />> AMac may be concern trolling a bit<br /><br />Here's prominent AGW Consensus blogger Eli Rabett on <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/02/betroffenheitstroll.html" rel="nofollow">Concern Trolls</a>.<br /><br />Everything I've written here and at Lucia's has been in good faith. To be repaid in this coin of faux psychoanalysis feels cheap.<br /><br />I don't comment where my voice isn't welcome. This blog is your party, and it's a big internet.<br /><br />If you didn't mean that drive-by, you might say so. If it is what you meant, I'm done.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-59334365935732680352010-02-12T12:58:06.181-08:002010-02-12T12:58:06.181-08:00AMac may be concern trolling a bit, but I don'...AMac may be concern trolling a bit, but I don't see any dung throwing. <br /><br />On the other hand, I'm afraid I don't understand what Frank is getting at, at all.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-35318721658309585762010-02-12T12:51:52.694-08:002010-02-12T12:51:52.694-08:00Frank Bi --
Sorry, I missed this:
> Are you h...Frank Bi --<br /><br />Sorry, I missed this:<br /><br />> Are you honestly trying to understand what we're about, or are you just throwing dung?<br /><br />I'm slowly learning some of the AGW science, which is important as far as what public policy should be. How people deal with dissonance between external facts and internal beliefs obviously interests Michael Tobis. Me, too.<br /><br />Throwing dung? I re-read the thread and don't see where I've given offense.<br /><br />This is a <i>conversation</i>, not a lesson where I've agreed to the task of understanding what you are about. If it annoys you, how about saying, "I'm done." I'll say "OK" (though I might still respond to Lazar or MT).AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-23197321266377457312010-02-12T12:48:03.784-08:002010-02-12T12:48:03.784-08:00AMac:
I asked
"Are you honestly trying to u...AMac:<br /><br />I asked<br /><br />"Are you honestly trying to understand what we're about, or are you just throwing dung?"<br /><br />You said,<br /><br />"Re: my use of 'AGW Consensus,' [...]"<br /><br />Thank you, AMac, for repeatedly dodging my questions and chasing after some tangential part of some remark as an excuse to throw out your own talking points. That speaks volumes more about you, than it does about any of the "counterproductive tactics" you claim to decry.<br /><br />* * *<br /><br />"towards the end of the piece, he [Feynman] makes his points about the practice of science in direct, unadorned prose. I hope that helps."<br /><br />OK, AMac. Here's the plain prose. Which part of<br /><br />"Over here we do things very, very, very differently -- more differently than you can imagine."<br /><br />do you not understand?<br /><br />-- <a href="http://inactivism.tk/" rel="nofollow">bi</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-4511797769037523252010-02-12T12:28:58.270-08:002010-02-12T12:28:58.270-08:00Frank Bi,
You don't appear to be very good at...Frank Bi,<br /><br />You don't appear to be very good at paraphrasing me. If you want to converse, it might help if you quote me, instead.<br /><br />Re: my use of "AGW Consensus," I've tried to find a description that is neither offensive nor flattering. Is there a better term? By the way, "Denialist" <i>is</i> offensive, at least to me. As well as inaccurate.<br /><br />If and when I become convinced that Michael Tobis' concerns about the timing and magnitude of climate change are valid, then I'll also become very worried about the counterproductive tactics of so many Consensus adherents. That's the future.<br /><br />Richard Feynman's "Cargo-Cult Science" is an essay based on a metaphor. It was rewarding to follow his thinking, because of who he is, how he writes, and what he has to say. This metaphor is a literary device: towards the end of the piece, he makes his points about the practice of science in direct, unadorned prose.<br /><br />I hope that helps.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-76201948417197063912010-02-12T11:15:49.863-08:002010-02-12T11:15:49.863-08:00AMac:
So you repeatedly claim that you don't ...AMac:<br /><br />So you repeatedly claim that you don't understand a word of what I'm saying, and yet you pretend to understand what we "The AGW Consensus" are doing, to the point of giving us unsolicited advice.<br /><br />Are you honestly trying to understand what we're about, or are you just throwing dung?<br /><br />-- <a href="http://inactivism.tk/" rel="nofollow">bi</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-4350607916472589222010-02-11T15:09:21.085-08:002010-02-11T15:09:21.085-08:00AMac,
Not to me.
I accept your reasons for reser...AMac,<br /><br /><i>Not to me.</i><br /><br />I accept your reasons for reserving doubt toward the consensus are what you say they are. But when members of the public tell me why they doubt AGW they often refer to a puff piece they read in a 'newspaper' or watched on TV, with trivial errors, endlessly debunked stuff, like confusing weather and climate. And they generally don't mention Feynman or Popper. The most recent example based his decision from watching the "Great Global Warming Swindle" -- a piece of fraudulent, denialist, PR. Disagree? I mean, do you disagree the factors I mentioned -- <i>two decades of disingenuous and often lying PR by politicians, PR professionals, journalists, conservative think tanks, astroturf organizations and more recent efforts on the intertubes</i> -- have influenced the public (as a group) opinion? Are your experiences greatly different?<br /><br />Turing word says; "conse"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-34732728730205623122010-02-11T09:05:19.773-08:002010-02-11T09:05:19.773-08:00bi --
> Dude, you can't ask other people t...bi --<br /><br />> Dude, you can't ask other people to treat you as similar to themselves, and then later complain that (according to you) people are treating you as similar to themselves.<br /><br />Sorry, this remark isn't readily interpretable.<br /><br />> Which part(s) of the analogy do you not understand? <br /><br />I'd suggest you make your point directly rather than via analogy.<br /><br />- - - - -<br /><br />Lazar --<br /><br />> If we engage activists at all it is as far as those efforts can help in engaging the public.<br /><br />That sounds like a good plan. It's what Lucia suggested to MT.<br /><br />> [AMac] The trust and authority of AGW Consensus Science wasn't stolen by evil denialists<br /><br />> {Lazar] Yes it was. <br /><br />Not to me. The issue was and is the divergence between the norms of AGW Consensus science, and the norms of science as conceived by Popper and Fenyman (Cargo-cult science essay). <br /><br />That doesn't make the Consensus wrong. It means Consensus claims should be approached with caution.<br /><br />Thanks for the heads-up on the emerging Houghton quote scandal. We'll see how it plays out.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-52875936161316487582010-02-11T07:01:47.121-08:002010-02-11T07:01:47.121-08:00"Groundhog Day; six more weeks of climate cha...<a href="http://simondonner.blogspot.com/2010/02/groundhog-day-six-more-weeks-of-climate.html" rel="nofollow">"Groundhog Day; six more weeks of climate change debates?"</a>, Simon Donner;<br /><br /><i>Over time, Maribo, like most other climate-focused blogs became enveloped in the online game of whack-a-mole between the 20% of the internet-savvy population that is actively concerned about climate change and angry about the lack of action, and another 20% who see climate change as conspiracy cooked up by Al Gore. The battles may be necessary to stamp out the egregious mistakes and misrepresentations that permeate the internet and the daily news (*). The battles are also tiresome.<br /><br />I'd like to get back to thinking about the other 60% of the population. I've been working on new ideas and venues for outreach which may involve a re-imagining of Maribo and/or a venture into other media.</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-78613118593935465352010-02-11T06:29:19.807-08:002010-02-11T06:29:19.807-08:00Blaming the victims, a timely example -- from wher...Blaming the victims, a timely example -- from where does public distrust in climate science originate -- not those wascally denialists -- are you sure?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quote-used-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html" rel="nofollow">"Fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist"</a><br /><br />Peiser; think tank associate, not a climate scientist<br />Monckton; think think associate, financial interest, not a climate scientist<br />Booker; journalist, financial interest, nacs<br />Helmer; politician, nacsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-43621488068792976272010-02-11T06:07:44.458-08:002010-02-11T06:07:44.458-08:00AMac,
"Winning" can mean many things.
...AMac,<br /><br /><i>"Winning" can mean many things.</i><br /><br />Winning to most of us means enough support from the glorious, mercurial, disinterested public -- blown by the winds of a Morano screed one day and a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm" rel="nofollow">plastic bottle, vinegar and bicarb solution the next</a> -- to overcome our politicians love of fossil fuel money. Not winning over ideologically or financially committed activists -- has been tried, and was universally found to be a waste of time. If we engage activists at all it is as far as those efforts can help in engaging the public.<br /><br /><i>The trust and authority of AGW Consensus Science wasn't stolen by evil denialists</i><br /><br />Yes it was. By two decades of disingenuous and often lying PR by politicians, PR professionals, journalists, conservative think tanks, astroturf organizations and more recent efforts on the intertubes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-55927716285844024112010-02-11T05:15:40.828-08:002010-02-11T05:15:40.828-08:00"coherence"
I have not seen a "luk...<i>"coherence"</i><br /><br />I have not seen a "lukewarmer" generate *any* pdf of climate sensitivity, let alone one which is plausible and has a central value of less than 2C. Mostly I see a large focus on irrelevancies (to climate sensitivity). I wonder where beliefs in lower sensitivity come from (surely not e.g. upside down Tiljander)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-66003957314406603732010-02-11T04:59:34.828-08:002010-02-11T04:59:34.828-08:00AMac:
"At advocacy blogs, contributors can f...AMac:<br /><br />"At advocacy blogs, contributors can forget that 'we' share these challenges with 'them' (people who take a contrary position on the issue at hand)."<br /><br />"The 'angry white male' talk isn't an analogy, it's a projection."<br /><br />Dude, <b>you can't ask other people to treat you as similar to themselves, and then later complain that (according to you) people are treating you as similar to themselves.</b><br /><br />So which is it? You can't have it both ways.<br /><br />"You present an analogy about Jupiter that's not helpful to me."<br /><br />Which part(s) of the analogy do you not understand? Maybe I can clarify them for you. You see, we use the lingo of Jupiter among ourselves so often that sometimes we forget that others speak a different lingo.<br /><br />* * *<br /><br />MT:<br /><br />"I do not agree with bi that there is a huge qualitative difference between myself and someone like Lucia or Steve McIntyre."<br /><br />Whether something is "huge" depends on who's looking at it. It may not be huge in your terms, but it's definitely huge in AMac's (supposed) terms.bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-43795226130447576752010-02-10T19:13:26.932-08:002010-02-10T19:13:26.932-08:00It amazes me that people can write this stuff and ...It amazes me that people can write this stuff and not have the slightest idea of how utterly stupid they sound. Obviously they haven't had even a junior high level of science education.<br /><br />DanDan Satterfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17103428750040230969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-71199720397139321862010-02-10T19:11:05.454-08:002010-02-10T19:11:05.454-08:00MT,
Your 4:30pm comment wasn't responsive to ...MT,<br /><br />Your 4:30pm comment wasn't responsive to what I wrote at 3:48pm. Perhaps it wasn't meant to be, which is fine of course.<br /><br />I'd raise these points.<br /><br />"Winning" can mean many things. Consensus advocates don't seem to have thought much about that.<br /><br />Painting you as a criminal, all the while smiling and pretending to be honest and congenial -- If you can't <i>imagine</i> a good-faith dispute, then either you're being persecuted, or you suffer from a persecution complex. <br /><br />The only way science can win is with an appropriate network of trust and authority -- The trust and authority of AGW Consensus Science wasn't stolen by evil denialists. It has been damaged by the Consensus advocates who enabled and then excused the bad behavior of particular scientists.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-16613507553444620582010-02-10T16:30:43.469-08:002010-02-10T16:30:43.469-08:00Regarding alternative tactics, you can't win. ...Regarding alternative tactics, you can't win. <br /><br />If somebody wants to paint you as a criminal, all the while smiling and pretending to be honest and congenial, you cannot win in the eyes of a casual observer. At best you can break even by employing the same shallow tactics. But since the opponent is playing for the draw, that is as bad as losing.<br /><br />The only way science can win is with an appropriate network of trust and authority. This becomes very difficult and expensive under concerted attack. We have to figure out how to pay this price.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-72844721404007552372010-02-10T15:48:38.863-08:002010-02-10T15:48:38.863-08:00MT, I think "many people" (Feb. 10, 10:0...MT, I think "many people" (Feb. 10, 10:06am) is addressed to me, so I'll respond.<br /><br />Politeness is good; <i>civility</i> is the real virtue. The reality of the human condition is that people disagree, even about very important things. What should we do, move straight to coercion, based on what one party thinks? (See: Century, 20th, History of.) What if your beliefs, or mine, require common action? <br /><br />For that matter, what's the <i>disadvantage</i> of civility?<br /><br />> ...and don't value coherence.<br /><br />Can you cite examples from this thread or the one at <i>The Blackboard</i> that lead you to assert that I don't value coherence? If the riposte is, "many people" doesn't include AMac and his ilk... <i>of course</i> many Lukewarmers aren't particularly coherent. Ditto for many AGW Consensus adherents. So the insight is... what?<br /><br />> They ["many people"] claim to value "science", a claim which is at best delusional, because coherence is the fundamental tool of scientific truth-seeking.<br /><br />Today, <i>everybody</i> claims to value Science. "Everybody" in Medieval Christendom claimed to value the divinity of Jesus. (Somehow, never managing to arrive at unanimity or peace. Go figure).<br /><br />Here's the rub: what, exactly is this totem that we all agree on? <br /><br />I value the application of the scientific method as the best way to learn about the natural world. I value the process of falsifiability as described by Karl Popper, Richard Feynman, and others. I <i>don't</i> assume that people who have the credentials and jobs that make them Scientists are immune from the shortcomings that afflict all of humankind. I <i>don't</i> assume that their work product is necessarily correct.<br /><br />> This drives people who actually do value truth-seeking to a fury. <br /><br />"This" needs to be better defined. "People who actually do value truth-seeking" needs characterization, too.<br /><br />> This fury is unattractive to observers and weakens the credibility of science. <br /><br />Yes. The fury that is readily displayed by many advocates of the AGW Consensus conveys information about the nature of their beliefs. To observers, it weakens the perceived credibility of AGW Consensus science.<br /><br />Suppose, hypothetically, that some climate scientists engaged in Bad Behavior. E.g. suppose that they produced faulty scientific papers that supported their deeply-held beliefs that immediate, sweeping, worldwide action is required to curb GHG emissions.<br /><br />What should the response of the wider AGW Consensus community be?<br /><br />* <i>Close ranks</i>. Admitting that climate science can be flawed would provide ammo to Denialists at a critical time when the focus should remain on planet-saving action.<br /><br />* <i>Offer justified criticism</i>. The AGW Consensus is driven by the science. Bad behavior leads to results that are unreliable or wrong. Good policy can't be based on faulty science. <br /><br />* <i>Offer justified criticism</i>. For the AGW Consensus' insights to translate into actions, a plurality of citizens beyond the committed base have to understand the threat of human-caused climate change. The credibility of the Consensus will be eroded if advocates selectively support Bad Behavior. In the long run, credibility will be enhanced if observers recognize that the AGW Consensus community walks the walk.<br /><br />Unfortunately for you -- unfortunately for all of us, if you're right -- this hypothetical, isn't. Certain climate scientists have put the Consensus community in just this position.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-88013969011189008302010-02-10T10:06:18.923-08:002010-02-10T10:06:18.923-08:00Many people value politeness and don't value c...Many people value politeness and don't value coherence. <br /><br />They claim to value "science", a claim which is at best delusional, because coherence is the fundamental tool of scientific truth-seeking. This drives people who actually do value truth-seeking to a fury. This fury is unattractive to observers and weakens the credibility of science. <br /><br />I fell into the trap when Morano called the world's attention to my somewhat impolitic article about Kim SImac. It was not as if I was unaware of the trap; I began this blog by talking about it. <br /><br />I do not agree with bi that there is a huge qualitative difference between myself and someone like Lucia or Steve McIntyre. <br /><br />Why their behavior is so immensely destructive despite their reasonable intentions and skills is a separate topic, and an interesting one. Learning more about this was what was so fascinating about my recent foray to Lucia's.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.com