Congratulations! You have taken the first step towards attempting to communicate your expertise and thoughts to the wider world, which remains poorly served by its traditional sources of information when it comes to complex societally relevant issues like climate change. Your aim to clarify the science (or policy options or ethical considerations or simply to explain your views) is a noble endeavor and we wish you luck and wide readership. But do be aware that you are dipping your blog into sometimes treacherous waters. Bad things can happen to good bloggers. So in a spirit of blog-camaraderie, and in light of our own experiences and observations, we offer some advice that may be of some help in navigating the political climate relatively unscathed.
Be honest to yourself and your readers. If your aim is to educate, say so. If your aim is to push for more funding for your pet projects, or advocate for a specific policy, be upfront about it. Don’t however be surprised if people spend their time trying to find hidden motives in what you do. There is a school of thought had has decreed that any public speech must be directed towards public action and that there is no such thing as a pure information supply. In the widest sense this is probably true – everyone blogs, writes or speaks out for a reason. However, this is often interpreted as implying that all public speech must be either pro-or-con some very specific proposal. This is nonsense. One can criticize George Will’s or Alexander Cockburn’s misuse of climate science without agreeing or disagreeing or even having looked at their public policy proposals. Of course, the corollary of this position, that any such criticism of your statements must itself be directed at supporting the opposite political action is very rarely appreciated. On the other hand, assuming that criticism of your statements must be politically motivated is usually a mistake. Sometimes that is true, but there are enough exceptions that it should not be assumed.
Know that there are people who will misrepresent you. Climate science is perceived to have political, economic and ethical implications. Most of the what gets discussed really doesn’t have any such implication, but the ‘scientization‘ of political discourse on this issue means that micro-parsing of published work and blog postings is a common practice. Advocates of all stripes (though predominantly those outside the mainstream) will examine whether a new result or comment appears to project onto their particular agenda, and trumpet it widely if it does. The motives can range from specifically political to a desire for publicity or position, though the exact reasons are often obscure and mostly not worth debating. Thus 15th Century tree rings become an argument against the Kyoto Protocol, just as bacterial flagella are whipped into service when discussing the role of religion in public life.
In the specific world of climate-related blogs there are a number of conduits by which misrepresentations gain wider currency. Matt Drudge for instance, spends an inordinate amount of time finding crackpot climate science stories in fringe media and highlighting them on the widely-read Drudge Report. Marc Morano (who we hear is leaving his post as a staffer for Senator Inhofe) is a very diligent reader of the climate blogs (Pielke2, WUWT, RC etc.) and any misrepresentation found there, or criticism that could be misrepresented, will quickly find its way into many email in-boxes. From there, if you are lucky, further misrepresentations might find their way onto the Rush Limbaugh’s show (via Roy Spencer), or Glenn Beck as throwaway lines confirming (to them) the perfidy of mainstream climate science.
Be aware that the impact that you have might be very different from the impact that you think you should have. Over time, if you find yourself constantly misquoted or used to support positions or ideas you don’t agree with, think about why that might be. You will likely find yourself accused of ‘stealth advocacy’ i.e. of secretly agreeing with the misquoters. If that isn’t actually the case, remember that the abandonment of responsibility for your words (i.e. “how was I to know I would be misquoted so often?”) is not an option that leaves you with much integrity. Being misquoted once might be a misfortune, being misquoted more often smacks of carelessness.
Don’t expect the world to be fair. Read Mamet’s “Bambi v. Godzilla“, and in particular the section containing this line:
“In these fibbing competitions, the party actually wronged, the party with an actual practicable program, or possessing an actually beneficial product, is at a severe disadvantage; he is stuck with a position he cannot abandon, and, thus, cannot engage his talents for elaboration, distraction, drama and subterfuge.”
Since you are presumably stuck with a coherent set of ideas, you won’t be able to adopt ten mutually contradictory inconsistent arguments in the same paragraph, or engage in the cherry-picking, distortion or deliberate misquotation. Though it is occasionally instructive to show what you could have claimed if you didn’t have such ethical principles.
Don’t let completely unfounded critiques bother you. If you speak out in the public sphere, as sure as night follows day, you will be criticized. Some criticisms are constructive and will help you find your voice. Many are not. If you are successful, you will start to come across an online simulacrum of you that bears your name and place of work but who holds none of your views, has no redeeming character traits and would be a complete stranger to anyone who has actually met you. Ignore him or her. There are some people who will always be happier demonising opponents than honestly interacting with real people.
Don’t defame people. This should go without saying, but trivially accusing scientists of dishonesty, theft, academic malpractice and fraud pretty much rules you out of serious conversation. Instead it will serve mainly to marginalize you – though you may gain a devoted following among a specific subset. Don’t be surprised if as a consequence other people start to react negatively to your comments.
Correct mistakes. Again, it should go without saying that maintaining integrity requires that errors of fact be corrected as soon as possible.
Realize that although you speak for yourself, if you take mainstream positions, you will be perceived as speaking for the whole climate science community. Don’t therefore criticize unnamed ‘scientists’ in general when you mean to be specific, and don’t assume that the context in which you are speaking is immediately obvious to casual readers.
Avoid using language that can easily be misquoted. This is hard.
Don’t use any WWII metaphors. Ever. This just makes it too easy for people to ratchet up the rhetoric and faux outrage. However strongly you hold your views, the appropriateness of these images is always a hard sell, and you will not be given any time in which to make your pitch. This is therefore almost always counter-productive. This can be extended to any kind of Manichean language.
If you get noticed by the propagandists, wear that attention like a badge of honor. You will be in very good company.
If you get caught in a blogstorm, know that this too will pass. Being targeted like this is not very much fun (ask Heidi Cullen). But the lifecycle for a blog-related kerfuffle is a few days in general, and the blogosphere as a whole has an extreme attention deficit disorder. After finding that your post and followups were all anyone can talk about on Monday, it likely won’t get mentioned again after Thursday.
Recognize that humor is far more effective than outrage. But try and rise above the level of the schoolyard. Think Jon Stewart rather than Rodney Dangerfield.
If all of the above doesn’t put you off the idea completely, welcome to the blogosphere! Your voice is sorely needed.
Someone above gave some examples of extreme variability in microclimate.
I have another example – rainfall in Portland, Oregon varies by about a factor of two depending where in the city you put your rain gauge. The current water year figures vary from 12″ to 24″, looking at an online summary of rain gauge data monitored for Portland.
Now, I don’t think that temperature in the city varies widely other than by altitude, but I’m not surprised to learn of such variability elsewhere. I do know that here in Portland, if I drive north about 15 miles to Sauvie Island on a rain showery spring or fall day, there’s a good chance I’m going to get a decent amount of sun and more warmth than downtown. Both at sea level. I suppose if I cared enough I could track down whether there’s data available to quantify that, but thus far I only care enough to jump in my car a few days in spring and fall and take advantage (good birding, too…).
As I’m sure you know, arguments from personal incredulity opposing evolution are bread-and-butter within the Creationist world. Your friend’s arguments against the temperature data are to a large extent no different.
Responding to John Burgeson in 234, Ray Ladbury wrote in 239:
I didn’t grasp just how important this point was when I first encountered it more than a year ago, so I hope no one minds if I expand on it a little.
While annual temperatures can differ by several degrees even in close proximity to one-another, temperature anomalies tend to be strongly correlated at distances as great as a thousand or more kilometers apart. As such, while the annual average temperature will be strongly sensative to where one chooses to place a thermometer even over distances of a few meters, so that error bars on average temperature for a given region will be quite wide, average annual temperature anomalies won’t be anywhere near as dependent upon position, and consequently the temperature anomaly can be known with a far greater degree of accuracy. The same applies to height. The average annual temperature that one gets from a thermometer will often be strongly dependent upon how high the thermometer is from the surface, but temperature anomalies will generally be far less sensative.
Since different thermometers over a wide area will measure similar temperature anomalies relative to a given base year, we can also reduce the uncertainty by constructing an average of the temperature anomaly for that region rather than an average of the temperature itself. Since the temperature anomalies will be similar for that region, by the law of large numbers, the average anomaly for the region will generally be known with greater and greater accuracy with the more points one includes in a representative sample, e.g., with a range of uncertainty roughly proportional to the inverse of the square root of the number of points — assuming (currently for the sake of argument) a Bell distribution.
This is what makes so much of climatology possible. When we say that a doubling of carbon dioxide will raise the global average annual temperature by so many degrees, this also implies that the average annual temperature anomaly will increase by the same number of degrees. But while the average annual temperature is almost meaningless, we can speak quite meaningfully about the average annual temperature anomaly.
Rod B Says (17 March 2009 at 1:11 AM):
“James (235), your statement, “…temperature data has next to nothing to do with AGW theory.”, is incredibly astounding.”
Why, thank you (blushes modestly). But most insights are astounding, or should be. I don’t claim this one is particularly great, and it’s certainly not original to me, but if you bother to think about it you might come to understand more about AGW, and perhaps even something about science in general.
You, like a lot of people who go on about temperature records, are taking what I might call a forensic approach. Like a CSI team confronted with a corpse, you’re trying to figure out what caused the death. (Or for a better analogy, trying to prove that the corpse isn’t dead after all.) AGW theory is more like the eyewitness who saw Mr. Sapiens empty a vial of slow-acting poison into the soup that’s being eaten with every sign of enjoyment. The denialists at the table may argue that they feel fine so far, but how much is that worth?
dited to bypass the specia.list spam-catcher
John Burgeson wrote in 248:
I have little reason to doubt you.
However, he also states:
Frankly, CO2 Science has something of a history. It is the newsletter for the “Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change.”
And here is some background on that organization:
(continued)
(continued from above)
From SourceWatch:
Looking further:
(continued)
(continued)
The statement that they signed was:
An Open Letter to the Signers of
“Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action” and Others Concerned About Global Warming
by Various Authors
InterfaithStewardship.org
July 25, 2006
http://web .archive org/web/20060830215116/http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/pages/article.php?&id=160
The Interfaith Stewardship itself is heavily ideological, with ties to dominion theology and specifically Howard Ahmanson, the reconstructionist billionaire recluse who heavily financed the Disco.very Institute, Intelligent Design and much of the reli.gious right.
In contrast, here are lists of organizations and credited scientists (with relevant expertise) who have generally endorsed the IPCC’s views on global warming:
The Consensus on Global Warming:
From Science to Industry & Reli.gion
http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
Do you think that the Idso bothers might involve themselves in cherry-picking? Generally speaking, how would you expect them to compare to the IPCC or the scientific organizations which support its views? Would they be less ideological than the scientific organizations that generally endorsed the views of the IPCC?
John A. Davison writes:
What evidence or calculation would make you change your mind?
Rod B #245 >> … incredibly astounding.
Surface temperatures are not the only place that additional heat can go. The world ocean has a mass 252 times greater than the atmosphere*, so air surface temperatures are a poor measure of the total temperature trend in the ocean-atmosphere system.
AGW theory says humans are releasing fossil carbon into the atmosphere, primarily as CO2 which is a greenhouse gas, that *must* lead to a warming of the ocean-atmosphere system.
Failure to confirm this with surface temperature data doesn’t “disprove” AGW, it only points you to look elsewhere for the “missing” heat energy.
—————————
Wikipedia: mass of atmosphere = 5.148 million GT, volume of world ocean = 1300 million cu.km, and for water, 1 GT = 1 cu.km at reference conditions.
1300 / 5.148 = 252
Mark (247), Huh? Let’s see, if AGWarming theory has nothing to do with temperature, why don’t they call it ACI for Anthro CO2 Increasing theory?? That would totally cover your definition.
James (253), I made no assertion on the quality or meaning or relevance of the temperature recordings. If some readings at first point to say, global cooling, I’d suggest your scientific reply (were there one) would be to address noisy variability, short term variations, statistical insignificance, etc., as others have done routinely. To respond instead that temperatures have nothing to do with AGW is prima facie asinine.
The original comment had to do with temperature data, not “temperature”. Given that early AGW theory preceded any effort to measure global temperatures and therefore the existence of relevant temperature data, I would think the statement that AGW theory doesn’t depend on temperature data is blindingly obvious. AGW didn’t result from warming being observed and there being a need to explain it. AGW arose from physics, and temperature data is nothing more than supporting evidence, and not the only supporting evidence …
Hi
I am just starting out in this sector.
Thank you for the advice which is given in this blog story. I appreciate your views and advice.
I will be sure to keep these in mind when writing on my blog about climate.
It is a very sensitive issues which needs to be addressed truthfully, but at the same time having a different views and prespectives put across.
Taking into consideration what others have said, as well as repecting their opinions for information.
Stacey
Mark at 249 with the dice roll analogy:
Expanding to the T data, you could have two nearby locations with a correlation of zero and, if the lack of correspondence was due to spatial variability of the weather physics involved, then relative to a temporal trend and its causes, it wouldn’t matter in the least. The real issue is the degree to which the recorded differences are due to measurement error at one or both locations, which would necessarily affect either the accuracy or the precision of any temporal trend estimate(s).
What John Burgeson’s friend doesn’t understand, is that it is possible to make data-based judgements on the likelihood that the observed historical data contain measurement errors versus being a reflection of spatial variability, using modern weather spatial covariance information. And from there to correct the historical instrumental record accordingly. That’s what quality control of the historical record is based on. The point is that measurement error is often identifiable and addressable, using valid statistical techniques. It’s not a spatial variability issue, and it’s not climate scientists making up data to cover up for bad thermometers. It’s a controlled application of the knowledge of spatial patterns to legitimately correct bad data.
re: 263.
Aye, but you need (REALLY NEED) to know your onions with the maths.
Something the proposition in the paper hasn’t bothered itself with.
“Mark (247), Huh? Let’s see, if AGWarming theory has nothing to do with temperature, why don’t they call it ACI for Anthro CO2 Increasing theory?? That would totally cover your definition.”
The theory of evolution by the survival of the fittest isn’t dependent on the evolution. It’s and explanation of WHY the evolution is happening.
That it is happening is a fact.
The theory is giving a reason for these facts.
AGW ***theory*** is those two simple statements.
the raise in temperature is a ***result*** from those two simple statements.
The correlation between the model made from the theory of AGW and what is really happening isn’t the AGW theory, it’s the proof of it.
But you think what you will. None so deaf as will not hear.
“re: 263. Aye, but you need (REALLY NEED) to know your onions with the maths.
Something the proposition in the paper hasn’t bothered itself with.”
Par for the course on bothering with the onions thing.
John Reisman [125]:
You seem to be really hung up on people being ‘out of context’ , as evidenced in your responses to RyanO’s very balanced and reasonable posts, and to my posts on the George Will topic—and your own website.
Judging from the extremely condescending and preaching tone you took with me in your reply to my questions re realities and limitations of the alternative renewable technologies for replacement of coal..….you [ and some others on this blog], seem to want to make it off limits to discuss what mitigation impacts mean to ordinary Americans ….and Australians, in my case.
You and others seem to be affronted by talk of it.
My questions [ unanswered by you ] are just questions, not opinions—legitimate questions, since decisions made now on mitigation, seriously affect all of our lives and those of our children for the foreseeable future.
You seem to think unquestioning acquiescence without debate is the only defensible way .
Whether or not there’s an adherence in the scientific and political community to ‘post-normal science’ is most certainly relevant when momentous decisions are being made on the strength of a proclaimed and much-promoted scientific consensus.
The people whose lives could be changed forever, have a democratic right to know if the science informing decision-making has been coloured by Mike Hulme’s advice that scientists ‘trade [normal] truth for influence’, so that they will ‘remain listened to…to bear influence on policy’.
I don’t need, by the way, your condescending ‘help’ to ‘explain’ the difference between social science and natural science.
You rail against other people raising ‘straw men’ , but you do it yourself all the time.
I didn’t say scientists recommend that people cut down trees….but I did say that people who are cutting them down might think it’s OK to go on doing so, since the AGW side dismisses and ridicules [ as happens to me here], the notion that the destruction of huge tracts of forest in the time frame of this modern warming, and their replacement with concrete, buildings, roads, airports, and all sorts of urban development….. might have the double whammy effect of removing the sinks and raising the surface temperature.
In your link to the Coleman article, you appear to misrepresent Coleman on his statements on catalytic converters etc ,infinitely more than he or anyone else ever misrepresents you.
He didn’t claim that catalytic converters reduced CO2—or even imply it.
You can say my questions are ‘silly’…doesn’t worry me.
I know…and I’m sure you must know …that the questions on the limitations of present renewable technology has to be dealt with.
You cite the UN as an entity we should trust…but some of us are only too well aware of how rarely the UN gets things right….and how many people have died waiting for UN help.
It seems that, according to you , my courage , integrity and honour must be questionable if I don’t have the ‘right’ reasons [ ie those you approve of] for using a blog name….if my reason doesn’t pass your test…..and that’s offensive.
If you find my use of a blog name ‘distressful’, then you’re just too easily distressed.
I will certainly continue to use a blog name….and though it’s definitely not your business—the reason I do so, is so that my comments don’t give my children any problems.
So I guess, in your scheme of things, I stand indicted.
You may be right that unstable countries will use thorium reactors—but you could be wrong too…they may opt not to….. if they want weapons material .
Re your request for evidence of your certainty….
The statement, ‘We are already past very certain’ , sounds like certainty to me.
Mark, dhogaza: Aaah, so it’s temperature “data”, not temperature that has nothing to do with AGW. I’ll have to dig out my old microscope to check out the substantive difference there. But then Mark says that evolution has nothing to do with evolution theory; don’t you mean evolution data?? (Though you’ve morphed the very clear ‘nothing to do with’ with the more slippery ‘doesn’t depend on’ – whatever that means in the fundamental scheme of things.)
Maybe I’m dense. But wouldn’t the proof of AGW theory be (drum roll)… temperature increases?? And if the temperature increases, the temperature data will….. what?
The statement in question was a gross misstatement. But, on the other hand, it could be a simple overstatement for effect: still not correct but not a really big deal either. Your defense to the death of it, however, is quite curious.
A friendly tip: if you have any interest in convincing the masses, don’t try to refute common Freshman understanding and logic with either arcane pedantic PhD-level definition twisting, or a fast soft shoe. Don’t start a speech with, “Ladies and gentlemen, the first thing to know is that global warming has nothing to do with temperature.” I would suggest.
#257
Barton Paul Levinson asks me “What evidence or calculation would make you change your mind?”
I answer -If I am wrong the future will prove I was wrong.
[edit]
I have lost count of the number of times skeptics/denialists continue to refer to the supposed need for “proof” of AGW after it has been pointed out to those same people numerous times that “proof” is a mathematical concept. And that science does not work that way but via the scientific method. It speaks volumes that skeptics/denialists continue to repeat the “proof” strawman and apparently fail to undertake the effort to learn about the scientific method involved in AGW research. Furthermore, that vigorous “debate” re: AGW has occurred continually through peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences such as the AGU among many others.
Wow, the ironically named “truth” takes over 600 words to say we need to consider the impacts of climate mitigation for “average” Aussies and Americans. Such wordiness is all the more remarkable since I don’t know of anybody who is saying otherwise.
In the short term, of course, energy prices will have to rise. I would suggest, however that this is merely revoking a “subsidy” that hides the true cost of energy from the consumer. Since energy demand is to an extent, elastic, and since we hope consumers are rational agents, the hope is that energy demand would fall. I and others have cited recent case studies where energy consumption decreased 30% or more without grievous loss of living standard. In the longer term, renewable energy resources will come on line to replace fossil sources, and energy prices will again fall. I don’t see any reason why the ultimate result would not be a net improvement in living standards for the majority of global population. What is more, we are already at Peak Oil, and Peak Coal is at most decades away. These changes are needed in any case. Now we just need to accelerate them.
RodB misses the window again: “Mark, dhogaza: Aaah, so it’s temperature “data”, not temperature that has nothing to do with AGW. ”
Nope, AGW theory is an explanation of why temperatures will rise as a result of our exhaust of CO2. As you can see if you look back at the late 19th Century where there were papers explaining that CO2 production in the Industrial Revolution could produce athropogenically produced increased global temperatures.
You’ll notice that they didn’t have the temperature figures of 1970 to work with at that time…
PS “Maybe I’m dense. But wouldn’t the proof of AGW theory be (drum roll)… temperature increases?? ”
That doesn’t mean AGW ***relies*** on temperature increases, any more than natural selection requires evolution in species to occur. Natural selection is *sufficient* to explain the variety and similarities of species.
Rod B Says (18 March 2009 at 12:39 AM):
“Maybe I’m dense. But wouldn’t the proof of AGW theory be (drum roll)… temperature increases?? And if the temperature increases, the temperature data will….. what?”
Well, you’re getting warmer :-) As stated, the temperature data has nothing to do with the formation of the theory. It’s one of many lines of evidence which can be used to show that predictions from the theory are correct.
So we have the theory, and we have many lines of evidence – glacier retreat, arctic ice melting, earlier bloom times, poleward range extensions, and more – that match the predictions from theory. The temperature data matches the predictions as well, but some people want to “audit” the data, adjust it so that they can claim it doesn’t show a warming trend, and then claim that the adjusted data invalidates the theory.
I admit to not having more than basic college statistics, so I can’t offer an informed opinion on those audits. However, I can do a bit of trimming with Occam’s Razor. Start with N lines of evidence that match predictions from theory. After the auditors do their work, there are N-1. Even presuming the auditors have no particular axe to grind, what’s more likely: that the N-1 are wrong, or that the auditors are?
Of course if any one of the many lines of evidence differers markedly from others, it needs to be looked at. Professional statisticians here & elsewhere have done just that, and have pointed out (as far as I understand them) exactly where and why the auditors’ methods are in error.
Truth wrote: “. . .the AGW side dismisses and ridicules [ as happens to me here], the notion that the destruction of huge tracts of forest in the time frame of this modern warming, and their replacement with concrete, buildings, roads, airports, and all sorts of urban development….. might have the double whammy effect of removing the sinks and raising the surface temperature.”
Huh? Who here would argue that the UHI effect doesn’t exist, or that deforestation doesn’t release CO2? No-one that I can think of. This comment seems right out of an alternate reality.
“…the AGW side dismisses and ridicules [ as happens to me here], the notion that the destruction of huge tracts of forest in the time frame of this modern warming, and their replacement with concrete, buildings, roads, airports, and all sorts of urban development….. might have the double whammy effect of removing the sinks and raising the surface temperature.”
Hardly. Rely on the science, not the loudest voices in the shouting match.
James wrote in 274:
I suppose you think that the likelihood that a given scientific conclusion is wrong decreases as an exponential function of the number of lines of evidence.
That only works for members of the reality-based community. For denialists its the other way around. Knock out any one line of evidence and you’ve knocked out the conclusion — at least until someone else brings up the other lines of evidence. But then you can ignore them, go home, come back tomorrow and start afresh.
#267 truth
Irony is pretty ironic. I’m sorry you thought I was condescending but that was not my intention. My goal was to help you understand some things you seem to misconstrue. Your inability to be even reasonably accurate is expressed in your inability to quote yourself, let alone me.
The reason I am hung up on ‘context’ is because it is so critically important to understanding… well… everything.
You consistently misrepresent the position of others and then attack the misrepresentation, and spin your message to attempt to make it sound as if they are wrong and you are right. This is fallacious (there is another term for it, maybe you can guess).
RealClimate is about discussing the science. It sometimes wanders into science and policy; you seem to be avoiding the science. You don’t seem to know about relevant studies, pertaining to the subject you opine upon; that show that mitigation is reasonably expected to have economic benefits in both the short and long term. Certainly there will be some up front costs, but nothing in comparison to AIG and the goofs of corporate world.
You apparently don’t understand that not doing anything about AGW will be economically devastating for many species on earth.
I’m not sure you are capable of understanding all these things since you can’t even see the contextual relevance of something as simple as what Coleman was inferring about CO2 and catalytic converters.
It was a carefully word crafted paragraph in which an inference is visible. You can technically say that Coleman did not specifically state that catalytic converters reduce CO2, but you can not state as a matter of fact that the inference does not exist. When you add that to his stated bias “global warming is a scam”. You have a stronger case for the inference. You have a statement, you have a motive; you have means; you have reasonable cause for an inference.
If people ridicule you here in RC there must be a reason. Get your arguments in context and with relevance and you will see the ridicule diminish.
BTW, in case you had not noticed, I’m still hung up on context :)
Re #269 and other posts by John A Davidson.
“You are welcome to discuss these matters on my weblog. Alan of Oz, using another alias, showed up loaded with insult which prevented his being heard.”
Insult? – No john, like the people here who are misunderstanding your innocent questions, you have misunderstood my innocent advise.
Alias == Anonymous Coward? – No John, as a computer scientist I assure you that I do know how to hide my online identity if I so desire. The fact that you could connect my post to “Alan of Oz” does not imply you figured anything out, it in fact indicates I pointed out who I was on your blog. Also note that I later posted my thoughts to Brian about what I found at your blog at #187.
And please John consider me a freind, I do not have a manipulators black heart. I only came to your blog to post because I thought I was helping you by pointing out you were not “seeing” the answers posted.
Now if you don’t think proffesional help will curb the (IMHO) “sociopathic tendencies” you so proudly display in your blog then fine. Some people need to learn the hard way you know, nervous breakdown’s, climbing bell towers, that kind of thing.
Either way please don’t take my well-meaning suggestions as insults. I’m just trying to help you get to the root of your problems.
Just for the sake of completeness, I belive you are complaining about a comment that I left in response to what I quoted above in #187. IIRC it went something like this: “That’s pretty sick mate, you should seek help before you climb a bell tower and start shooting”. Now I’m not a mental health proffesional but I stand by that general diagnosis, please feel free to get a second opinion.
Oh and welcome to the future where you’re hypothesis and intentions have been falsified and exposed respectively. I for one no longer need to examine either until you come up with more detailed evidence than what I already have.
[Response: This discussion is done. No more from anyone please. – gavin]
Oh, please. Not here. Almost anywhere but here. Google is your friend-finder, if you’re hunting a playmate. But please, not here.
Gavin, thanks for allowing me to reply to the accusation.
Hank I know where you are coming from but this article was about advise to bloggers and if you read all the comments you will see some of that advise at work.
I’m also happy to admit I should have spotted #2 earlier. Again I think user moderation would help filter my noise while still retaining the content.
OT: An excellent new climate literacy brochure (“Climate Literacy: The Essential Principles of Climate Science) from NOAA, EPA, AAAS, NCAR, UCAR, AMS, DOD, NSTA and others) is now available at:
http://climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=/education/edu_index.jsp&edu=literacy
It does a great job summarizing information in a clear, concise manner for all ages.
[Response: Thanks. I have added it to our ‘Start Here’ resources. – gavin]
Another item of advice could be added: “Don’t blame ‘the democratic process’ when your policy recommendations are not adopted. It will make you appear childish and petulant.” For any young bloggers who are also drawing a government paycheck, the advice could be amended to read: “REALLY don’t blame the democratic process.”
[Response: Is this with reference to anything real? – gavin]
[Response: Is this with reference to anything real? – gavin]
I think he’s talking about how the denialosphere are getting their panties in a bunch because policy changes aren’t going their way and Leighton wants them to stop being crybabies.
Gavin asked: “Is this with reference to anything real?”
Leighton’s comment (currently #283, stamped 3/19 9:35am) refers to a statement by NASA climate scientist James Hansen. As reported by The Guardian/UK, Hansen is in the UK this week to participate in peaceful demonstrations calling for a moratorium on construction of new coal-fired power plants:
Hansen is not “blaming the democratic process” as commenter Leighton suggests. Hansen is expressing the view that the democratic process has been ineffective at addressing climate change because it has been “undermined” by corporate lobbying.
Whether or not one agrees with Hansen on this point, there is certainly nothing “childish and petulant” about his complaint. And Leighton’s comment is a blatant misrepresentation of what Hansen said. Hansen is not faulting the democratic process itself — he is saying that the democratic process has not been permitted to work because it has been subverted by fossil fuel industry money.
So, Leighton by his example has indeed provided some helpful advice for young climate bloggers: “Don’t blatantly distort and misrepresent what someone says, to make it appear they said the opposite of what they actually said. It will make you appear stupid and dishonest.”
#283 Leighton
You have constructed a classic straw man argument.
That is not appropriate.
#285 SecularAnimist
Thank you for spotting that! It’s terrible that people continue to not only misquote people but to take their words and spin them into a twisted mangled mess and then present that as if it represents some manner of truth is just sad.
Leighton may or may not have done this intentionally, but if it was intentional, and Gavin had taken the bait, it would have been all over the denial blogoshere. Saying that Gavin Schmidt disagrees with Jim Hansen in as many twisted contexts they could spin off of it.
I certainly hope that was not the intention of Leighton???
In response to the question (#286), my intention was to suggest that Hansen sounds childish and petulant when he says (assuming the quote is accurate), “The democratic process doesn’t quite seem to be working.” And, honestly, the criticism (#285) that what he really meant to say was that “the democratic process has not been permitted to work because it has been subverted by fossil fuel industry money” is even sillier. Sometimes you folks parody yourselves.
[Response: Hmmm… so your opinion is that governance today in the US is a pure and unsullied representation of the people’s will? I’ll have to think about that. – gavin]
Remember how strongly we believe that what’s happened in our short experience is the way things just naturally are. An example that interacts dismally with climate change, from economics:
“… The deepest belief of the modern economist is that the economy is a self-stabilizing system. This means that, even if nothing is done, normal rates of employment and production will someday return. Practically all modern economists believe this, often without thinking much about it. (Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it reflexively in a major speech in London in January: “The global economy will recover.” He did not say how he knew.) ….”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0903.galbraith.html
Leighton wrote: “… the criticism (#285) that what he really meant to say was that ‘the democratic process has not been permitted to work because it has been subverted by fossil fuel industry money’ is even sillier.”
Here are Hansen’s actual words, as quoted by The Guardian, from their recorded interview with him:
Hansen says that the democratic process is not working because “money is talking louder than the votes”. He is very clearly saying, in very plain language, that the democratic process has been subverted by money. That’s not what he “meant to say”. That’s what he did say.
With all due respect, Leighton, you are either a deliberate liar, or you are negligently and recklessly repeating lies that have been spoon-fed to you by others.
You can see what Hansen actually said on The Guardian’s website, which I linked to above. You can see that your representation of it is blatantly and maliciously false. If you are an honest person, who was unfortunately deceived by others about Hansen’s words, then you will acknowledge that you were wrong, and hopefully you will tell whoever disinformed you that they are peddling falsehoods.
On the other hand, if you are a deliberate liar out to smear Hansen, then you are wasting your time on this site. In Ditto-Head circles, it may be that one can “get over” by smearing people with misrepresentations and falsehoods that are pleasing to the prejudices of other Ditto-Heads. It doesn’t work here.
Re: 289. Getting Hanson’s actual words makes all the difference.
Lifting a few from those words is the tactic that gave our friends at the Young Earth zoo a lot of milage before they were roundly chastized for it. Although they still use it from time to time. As do the folks at Heartland.
Thanks, secularanimist. Whoever you are.
Burgy
#287 Leighton Smith
Are you in fact Leighton Smith? If so why didn’t you post your full name? If your in the media, you have no reason to hide your identity.
If it’s you, this makes your posts more nefarious. You are deliberately fishing for things to sell to the parrots in your market base, to support the views you opine upon, in order to support your market for advertising revenue.
It’s important to be honest. But that may not be how you pay your bills. You may be ignorant now of the science of climate change, but when you do wake up and see the relevant facts in context and realize just how expensive your delaying tactics are going to be and how challenging to those that have little defense against climate change that is not natural cycle… I wonder how well you will sleep at night.
On air weekday mornings on NewstalkZB
http://www.leightonsmith.co.nz/
http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2008/global-warming-a-new-religion/
Is truth one of your listeners?
BTW, I noticed you posted Coleman’s piece on “The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam”
Try reading this:
http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/john_coleman/the-amazing-story-behind-the-global-warming-scam
It is important to actually use and in fact use to the optimal capacity our ability to reason on an issue of this magnitude and importance. You are in the media, if that is you, and if you have ethics you actually have an ethical responsibility to tell the truth, not the truth you pick that makes you the most money.
Gavin asks, “so your opinion is that governance today in the US is a pure and unsullied representation of the people’s will?” Boy, talk about your straw men! If that is what he thinks the democratic process is supposed to be, he is both more naive and less well educated than I think is actually the case.
As for SecularAnimist’s latest foray into ad hominem argument (#289), I wasn’t smearing Hansen but criticizing his quoted comments as petulant. Hansen may not understand this (I suspect he does) but democratic processes are expected to allow various interests and viewpoints to have their say. I still don’t read the quoted comments as saying that the democratic process “has not been permitted to work. I read them as saying “The democratic process doesn’t quite seem to be working” because his views and recommendations haven’t to date prevailed. Blaming that on “money” (he did not say “fossil fuel industry money,” which of course would have been even sillier) has a nice populist ring to it but it is scarcely what anyone could call an analysis.
And I stand by my comment that it doesn’t at all suit a public servant in this country to criticize “the democratic process” as such, let alone to express support for action outside the democratic process as in the quotes attributed to him today.
[Response: Silly me. There I was thinking that ‘democracy’ had something to do with the will of the people. Your implicit definition of democracy as “one lobbyist, ten votes” is much more sensible. Or perhaps you are of a Panglossian persuasion? Whatever the government actually does or doesn’t do, it must be the best outcome in this, the best of all possible worlds? – gavin]
#287 Leighton Smith
If that is you… and even if it’s not you, the same basic principles apply since you are engaged in the debate.
Your intention in your post “was to suggest that Hansen sounds childish and petulant when he says (assuming the quote is accurate), “The democratic process doesn’t quite seem to be working.”
If you are Leighton Smith, and you are in the media, then wouldn’t you check the quote first before spouting off with a bunch of garbage?
[edit – please stay polite]
Order of precedence: Engage brain, then mouth.
Mr. Reisman (## 291, 293) I feel obliged to rescue Leighton Smith’s reputation by assuring you that I am not he.
[edit]
So, Leighton, lies, distortion, character assassination–all in a days work in a democracy, eh? Just following in the footsteps of other great democratic politicians like Geobels, Stalin…
“Gavin asks, “so your opinion is that governance today in the US is a pure and unsullied representation of the people’s will?” Boy, talk about your straw men! If that is what he thinks the democratic process is supposed to be, he is both more naive and less well educated than I think is actually the case.”
Right, the guy who is the LEAD AUTHOR on a recent publication (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf) describing and analyzing one of the most COMPREHENSIVE AND COMPLEX PIECES OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE EVER KNOWN TO MANKIND, is not well educated, because he takes exception to your bizarre definition of “democracy”. Gotcha.
________________________________________________
“Hansen may not understand this (I suspect he does) but democratic processes are expected to allow various interests and viewpoints to have their say.”
You mean like, the urban poor who are most at risk of heat-wave related illnesses and death? They sit right next to the Exxon lobbyists at the capitol don’t they?
_______________________________________________
“Blaming that on “money” (he did not say “fossil fuel industry money,” which of course would have been even sillier) has a nice populist ring to it but it is scarcely what anyone could call an analysis.”
Oh of course, that would have been extremely silly and outrageous, to think that the fossil fuel industry and their money is somehow involved here.
_____________________________________________________
“And I stand by my comment that it doesn’t at all suit a public servant in this country to criticize “the democratic process” as such, let alone to express support for action outside the democratic process as in the quotes attributed to him today.”
Can’t be criticizing the “democratic process” now can we? America, love it or leave it by God!!!
Thanks for your wonderful insights Leighton my man!!
If it was intentional, it will usually be explained at great length, and they’ll be wearing the t-shirt.
http://www.offworlddesigns.com/images/PRODUCT/icon/291.jpg
Did anyone see this already?
Surely, the deniers deny, but the insurance industry does not agree:
http://www.motherjones.com/riff/2009/03/could-climate-change-bring-down-insurers
Best, Will
#294 Leighton
I was curious but even if you are not Leighton Smith, the general principles apply. We need to keep learning quickly and sharing the contextually relevant science on this issue.
I think that Dr. Hansens statement regarding the function of that democracy in the aforementioned quote is appropriate and realistic in its concern.
You stated: “I wasn’t smearing Hansen but criticizing his quoted comments as petulant.”
The words in question:
Where is the insolent, rude speech or behavior and/or the capricious ill humor in the statement?
Maybe he didn’t say ‘fossil fuel industry money’ but so what? The fact is that ‘fossil fuel industry money’ has been involved in shaping the debate and that delays needed policy action as well as relevant understanding. You just look at the institutes like Heartland, etc. and look at the checks they have been given from the fossil fuel industry. That is not in dispute.
You are stretching to say he is criticizing the democratic process, more than stretching, you are taking a giant leap imo. My read is that he is criticizing corruptive influences that impose upon governance and policy. Maybe you should read it again.
BTW, to say
is to say an American citizen should not criticize it’s government if they work for the government (which means working for the people). That is silly, one of the best features of being an American is the right to conscientiously object. To be against that right is to be against the very right of freedom of speech and even against the capacity of democracy of which that freedom imbues.
Don’t you think your being hypocritical when you say an American citizen should not participate in freedom of speech? It sounds as if you are speaking against democracy and the freedoms, and constitution, which is designed to protect said rights. Think about it.
Hansen is proposing a worldwide moratorium on new coal power stations, which is what he should be doing given what he believes. It is an overstatement, sure, to deride the democratic process and blame the money opposing “his” money, but overstatement is the lingua franca of activists.
It could hardly be argued that the American people just voted in hopes of a coal moratorium, though I am sure a few did. In a recession perceived by many to be a borderline depression, though, more coal plants are going to be built.