Meanwhile…
I see there’s a climate confab happening in Lisbon (I never got my invite). Something about reconciliation.
I also see that the fate of the free world hangs on this meeting:
The very survival of our democratic form of government is at stake…Climategate is our wake-up call: We are on the slippery slope that leads to the tyrannical government described in “1984”³.
Despite the endless amusement I derive from such comments, this is the kind of nuttery that I’d like to see Judith splash a little cold water on at her site. Sure, it might lower her traffic by half, but isn’t one of the goals of her blogging enterprise to establish some common ground? How do you do that with anyone who thinks a small band of climate scientists are ushering in an era of world tyranny?
Speaking of common ground, it seems that breaking bread is one of the main strategies of the Lisbon confab, according to one of the participants:
I’m a strong believer in the power of getting disputants to sit down and eat together. It’s hard to be impolite to someone who just passed you the bread.
Really? I’ve never been to a family gathering that wasn’t impolite on some level. And that’s putting it politely.
<i>How do you do that with anyone who thinks a small band of climate scientists are ushering in an era of world tyranny?</i>
It’s not the small band of climate scientists anyone cares about.
It is those that would use the Climate Issue for other ends that concerns people.
Outside of the UN Security Council the United Nations is one nation, one vote.
In the United Nations General Assembly, Dictators ‘R Us is the majority party and has been since the UN’s inception.
George Soro’s Freedom House keeps a scorecard.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=546&year=2010
So just to continue with your logic: it is U.N-sanctioned dictators that will impose the world tyranny using issues such as climategate?
Can you be more specific about who is using the “Climate Issue” to usher in an Orwellian 1984?
It’s a real pity you’re not there. It could have served as the springboard to developing that Really Skeptical Science website you were talking about a while back. Well, maybe you and J. Curry can work on it with Mosher when they’re back.
You mean the one that cuts through everybody’s BS? Definitely.
If people want to complain that Gavin’s mean to them, there are plenty of forums in which they can do that to their heart’s content. J. Curry’s place, frex. I’m not particularly interested in reading those kinds of comments.
But if the Real Skeptics ™ want to have a forum, other than Skeptical Science, in which they can lay out affirmative positions — the historical temperature record lacks precision, or sensitivity models lack skill — and we interested amateurs get to see the best arguments for the weaknesses of the consensus view, that would be worth doing.
It looks to me like a very relevant gathering. I hope it’s productive and I’m pretty confident it will be. Certainly there are some prolific names in attendance, so there’s sure to be much to contemplate in the aftermath.
You should read more of Judith’s blog, Keith. I’d focus on the posts more than the comments for a while, if I were you. What I find useful about Judith’s site is that, when you can spend the time needed to consume the content in its entirety (I have a queue of 1,949 comments to get through at the moment.. ugh, I’m way behind) you do gain a better grasp of what inspires some of the more extreme notions and conspiracy theories floating out there – on both sides of the debate; the world governance concept is no less or more supported by a paper trail than the big oil merchant of doubt meme.
I’d say that Judith’s path is almost precisely the antithesis of Trenberth’s, much to her credit. Judith’s relevance is continuing to increase. Conversely, Trenberth is nowhere that matters and he has all but fallen off the chart.
Francis, I don’t think anyone actually complains that Gavin’s mean to them. In fact even Keith’s observed almost a collective gratitude to Gavin, among sceptics, for his encouragement of their scepticism.
That Gavin heavily moderates at RC is not, as far as I’m aware, in dispute. I do note, however, that the claim/discussion that “sceptics complain that Gavin is mean to them” is frequently raised by non-sceptics out of the blue, for no apparent reason. I personally think this is because sceptics don’t perceive RC as as relevant as non-sceptics do. Sceptics don’t spend much time thinking about RC these days, with so many more places for free and open discussion available to them.
The smug condescending tone of this posting is typical of the commentary about AGW. it is a primary reason that AGW proponents are having a difficult go of it now. I don’t know about the rest of the world but in Canada the AGW issue is moribund. In the recent Toronto election the super-green mayor m(David Miller) decided not to run. he would have been crushed in an humiliating defeat. Rob Ford who campaigned as the anti- Davie Miller anti-green candidate won in a landslide.
Perhaps more reconciliation and less smugness would bring AGW the consideration that it deserves
There isn’t much intervention in the comments on Climate Etc, and it’s certainly true that some comments get pounced on immediately by a crowd of disagreement while other claims slip past unchallenged, but this can be a sensitive issue… What do you do with someone who repeatedly posts and is convinced of this worldview? Exclude them if you can’t compel them to see differently? Not at a blog like Climate Etc., and Judith Curry certainly isn’t in the habit of addressing every comment she disagrees with. The result is you may need to scroll past a few mentions of world tyranny or Eisenhower’s prophecy on many threads. That’s just part of the ecosystem there, which I may wish was otherwise, but there have still been some good exchanges below the posts and a lot of the sillier stuff simply gets ignored.
I’ve enjoyed Judith Curry’s blog. The free flow of ideas is bound to be accompanied by a bit of nuttery. The comments can be long at her blog, but skipping over extremists and the silly arguments that ensue isn’t difficult and there is much interesting content. The complaint about RC isn’t about Gavin being mean (that was his lame attempt at deflection) but about the heavy hand of moderation which doesn’t include moderating nutters as long as they support RC and AGW. IMO blog readers want to see interesting content and splashing water on extremists isn’t very entertaining and tends to derail real discussion.
Nuttery being, of course, in the eye of the beholder. (is nuttery a word?)
Do AGW priests imagine the congregation so gullible that exposure to nuttery leads to apostasy?
If nuttery indeed be nuttery, it ought not be threatening. Insisting that it be called out betrays something important. IMO.
JimR, Kudos!
Succinctly put.
Regards, Ray
kdk33, More kudos to you.
Especially your last paragraph! It should be read carefully-probably a couple of times.
Regards, Ray
I agree with Keith, though the fact that a non-negligible group of people actually believe that nuttery doesn’t amuse me. It rather shows the uphill battle to increase the scientific literacy of the public.
Re Judith’s blog, that’s one of the things people take issue with: Her criticism seems to only be directed towards scientists who express their frustration with this nuttery in a different manner than she deems useful, and not at those who express the nuttery. Not a great way to build bridges (unless it’s a one-way bridge)
Bart,
There is a difference you always fail to acknowledge.
Climate scientists are one group. The rest of the world is another. Climate scientists did things which caused a loss of trust placed in them by the rest of the world. Those, like Judith Curry, who percieve this are trying to build back the trust and build bridges. Obviously these bridges will head *outward*, because the person building them, is on the inside!
There are a lot of comments that characterize Curry’s efforts as though she has gone over and befriended the skeptics and then, is trying to building a bridge back towards the scientists from that side. No. she is not doing that.
Curry is not building bridges toward the ‘general public’, she is communicating with and providing a platform for interaction with, the ‘extended peer community’, which is a specific subset of the general public. Criticism of climate science and scientists, coming from this community is particularly strong because there are reasons for it, and the inquiries and the IPCC reforms have failed to address these reasons. If you have not addressed the cause, why do you expect the effects to go away?
Right now, the ‘nuttery’ and criticism emanating from this corner is very specific. It could have been easily dealt with, by addressing some if not all of their demands. None of their demands have been, in reality, answered for. Climate science is too big, it is too arrogant. It has lots of money, political backing and power to even deign to look towards its critics.
How strange that you do not consider criticism of climate scientists coming from the skeptics as a form of ‘communication’. There is a lot of two-way traffic no doubt, it is just that you don’t see it that way. Climate scientists communicate with the skeptics via climate advocates and the mass media, and get feedback via blogs and the mass media. Look at Joe Romm – he loves it when media outlets are communicating hell and high water, but totally hates the skeptical blogs and other deniers when they direct blowback towards climate science.
I say thank God for Judith Curry – a voice for humility, moderation and rapprochement.
I think it a bit of a low shot to tar Curry and the Lisbon Conference with someone’s comment o
JImR:
To be clear, I enjoy Judith’s blog, have linked to her posts. I also like RC. My mild complaint in my post about not challenging extremists/loons could easily be directed at both sites and I imagine that the moderators at both have the same excuse: why bother.
My answer would be you pick your spots and that sends a message. Revkin increasingly does this at Dot Earth with both sides. RC should do it more evenly with both sides and so should Judith.
Building bridges is one thing. But I thought increasing the signal to noise ratio was another aspiration.
David (16):
I was having some fun with with the loony contingent of her amen corner. If she doesn’t want to offend them, fine. I have no problem doing so.
Judith’s aims (and the conference’s) are laudable. I also think she has a thick enough skin to be able to tolerate some of my benignly mocking barbs.
One other thing:
If the respective communities at Real Climate and Climate Etc self policed their own loons, it wouldn’t be necessary for the blog hosts to do so.
Now here again, someone might say, ignoring them is a better solution. The problem with that is that loons and nasties are rarely, if ever shot down by their own side, so the tacit message they get is, You like and approve of what I’m saying. So I’m going to keep saying it.
Keith Kloor, for what it’s worth, I’ve seen “nasties” on Climate Etc. get “shot down” a few times. I’m not sure if you would say they were shot down by their “own side,” as many “sides” post on Climate Etc., but it definitely has happened. As for “loons,” I’ve seen them get shot down by people on any and all sides.
Shub,
You make a fair point in your first two paragraphs. I realize that what Judith is trying to do is create a bridge from mainstream climate science to the technically savvy skeptics and in principle, I applaud such efforts (as well as such a workshop as is happening in Lisbon, though I’m slightly worried that the group of people present, wide as it may be, is centred strongly off centre cf. where the science is sitting).
For it to be a bridge to some outside world, the bridge should remain grounded at the original place as well. And that’s where the criticisms come in: Her strong and broadbrush accusations towards her professional peers, and the lack of criticism towards obvious lunacy, make her lose that grounding. She’s pushing herself away it seems. Fine if that’s her choice of course, but I can’t square it with her stated objective.
There is a variety of Blog Loon that loves being “shot down” and they fly back over and over, again and again, for more and more. I think they do it to disrupt the conversation. Like the kid who loves to squeeeeeeK the chalk on the blackboard, they enjoy watching the reaction. People really are the funniest animals.
About the Lisbon Conference. It sure beats 13,987 strangers walking around some poor California small town looking for a little excitement. Less is really more in this day and age. Think of the environmental signature of each, so obvious it hurts.
Bart
I agree with you on this.
“For it to be a bridge to some outside world, the bridge should remain grounded at the original place as well. ”
If one tries to find reasons for the above, by tracing Curry’s historic involvement in the climate debate, it comes down to a few things:
1) Curry, unlike her colleagues, followed the intricate CA threads right from the early days. Though she thought there was a lot of opinion, there was some substance too and she appreciated the points being made by commenters and tried matching wits in the comments section. Thereby she could understand the other side of the Realclimate-promulgated worldview.
2) When the emails were released, this cemented many of her misgivings
3) The hostile reaction at Realclimate to her view and explanations about Montford’s book added another dimension. The blog format does not favor a one-many dialogue in the comments section. People got in their criticism at her views in very strongly worded terms, with no filters on. Realclimate extended her no professional courtesy. They say in the climategate emails, they’ll carefully screen comments and line them up and contact scientists so that they can respond in a more deliberate fashion. Did they do that with her? No.
In any event, these three events inform Curry that she is *being* pushed away by one small vocal segment of the wider climate science community, which particularly likes to don the mantle and pretend as though it were the whole community itself. This corner does not want to listen to what she has to say.
Take her criticism of Trenberth’s views for example. Sure it may not be ‘professional’ to criticize one’s colleague openly. But Trenberth’s own message is so defensive and nasty, and it is in the public domain. By its abject crudeness and unsophistication, Trenberth is lowering the profile of climate science. Someone or the other will call him out for this! Think Schneider and Hansen. Even in the worst of their days, they never came out swinging like gorillas, they were a bit more restrained. Trenberth and Santer, on the other hand, are just out-of-control (in terms of communication effectiveness).
Take James Annan, another example. He has written lots of words criticizing Curry panning her Italian flag thing. Yet it is clearly evident he has paid no attention whatsoever to how the IPCC does its uncertainty assessments, which is what Curry developed her ideas around. He simply seems to toe the RC line.
My conclusion is: no institution will brook honest criticism. Superficial, fluffy stuff yes, but penetrating honest stuff never. Curry’s criticism toward Trenberth, to take one example, therefore will only hurt her and not Trenberth, in the short- to medium- term. She says she is OK with it, and she seems to have thought about it hard enough. I, for one, am fully with her.
Shub,
Good to see areas of agreement, but I disagree that she is being pushed away.
I was initially quite positive about her views and her role in the public discussions, e.g. agreeing with her stated need for introspection. But her uni-directional broad brush criticism was a prettty strong statement of hers, one that I (and many others I presume) took great issue with. With that, she totally distanced herself from the mainstream climate science profession in my view. Also on scientific issues she has made strange statements, not backed up by evidence or solid argument. It is those kinds of actions/words that has made her credibility with fellow scientists decrease, while it increased her credibility with “skeptics”. Hence what I call a one-way bridge.
Mind you, for all my criticism of her, I think the core of her argument as I see it (the need for scientists to be less defensive, less circling of the wagons, more introspection, more communication and collaboration with “outsiders”, taking criticism seriously, etc) is important and valid.
Bart,
> the lack of criticism towards obvious lunacy
This has been the breaking point for me – the site pretty quickly became a haven for a particular kind of groupthink that is *utterly convinced* it is not groupthink.
I tried to be positive from the outset and offer a minority viewpoint wherever possible, but have washed my hands of the place after references to climate scientists as “eugenecists” were allowed to stand. The comment threads there are now on a par with WUWT, which means Curry has singularly failed to provide a bridge between “consensus” and “skeptics”. Rather she has provided a bridge between “self-important-backslapping” and “self-important backslapping with tacit approval from a published scientist”.
would you care to link to that actual ‘eugenecists’ quote, so that the data may be seen in full and in context?
running away?
Keith, I think it’s more than simply why bother calling out the extremists/nutters. After all there are some who focus on the extremists and avoid the meat of the discussion. Discussions quickly get bogged down in conspiracy theories regardless of them being about leftest or big oil conspiracies. I like Curry’s open stance on comments. Climategate caused a lot of distrust and it’s not surprising that the extremists see that as a sign of some bigger conspiracy. On the flip side others claim Climategate was nothing and talk about the ‘hack’ as part of some bigger conspiracy to derail Copenhagen ignoring the actual E-mail content that caused concern. As with most issues the truth is somewhere in the middle which is an area few inhabit.
JimR,
I have a pretty open comment policy here, too, so long as people play reasonably nice and don’t get personal.
But I’m sorry, I just have zero tolerance at this point for outright nuttery, the kind that ties climategate or leftism or enviros to some slippery slope to UN world governance, or whatever. I say to these people, you go ahead and keep watching out for those black helicopters…
Just don’t come peddling that crap over here, is all I ask–or be prepared to be mocked.
Barry #26,
Dave H has no defense for his remark. Don’t expect him to provide one.
@29 Bob Koss
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/14/politics-of-climate-expertise-part-iii/
Comments by “mike” making comparisons between Trenberth and hemorrhoids, resulting in several references to eugenics.
Your apology is accepted.
slippery slope to individual PERSONAL carbon allowance/rationing in the UK…
A House of Commons document (can’t see any black, white or rainbow helicopters) oh joy, the Green party have the vice chair..
http://teqs.net/report/APPGOPO_TEQs.pdf
http://teqs.net/report/
http://teqs.net/report/media-coverage-and-launch-event/
Suddenly the climate change act 2008
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/pdf/ukpga_20080027_en.pdf doesn’t look so benign
1. TEQs (Tradable Energy Quotas) is an electronic energy rationing system designed to be implemented at the national scale.
2. There are two reasons why such a scheme may be needed:
Climate change: to guarantee achieving national carbon reduction targets.
Energy supply: to maintain a fair distribution of fuel and electricity during shortages.
3. TEQs (pronounced “tex”) are measured in units.
( “Tex” 😉 = tax 😉 )
4. Every adult is given an equal free Entitlement of TEQs units each week. Other energy users (Government, industry etc.) bid for their units at a weekly Tender, or auction.
5. If you use less than your Entitlement of units, you can sell your surplus. If you need more, you can buy them. All trading takes place at a single national price, which will rise and fall in line with demand. Buying and selling would be as easy as topping up an Oyster card or mobile phone.
6. All fuels (and electricity) carry a “carbon rating” in units; one unit represents one kilogram of carbon dioxide ““ or the equivalent in other greenhouse gases ““ released in the fuel’s production and use.
7. When you buy energy, such as petrol for your car or electricity for your household, units corresponding to the amount of energy you have bought are deducted from your TEQs account, in addition to your money payment. TEQs transactions are generally automatic, using credit-card or (more usually) direct-debit technology.
8. The total number of units available in the country is set out in the TEQs Budget. The size of the Budget goes down year-by-year ““ step-by-step, like a staircase.
9. The Budget is set by the Committee on Climate Change, which is independent of the Government. The Government is itself bound by the TEQs scheme; its role is to support the country in thriving on the available carbon/energy.
10. Since the national TEQs price is determined by national demand, it is transparently in everyone’s interest to help each other to reduce their energy demand, and to work together, encouraging a national sense of common purpose.
———-
The above spotted in the comments at Watts up..
http://teqs.net/report/frequently-asked-questions/#Rationing
A question, How would this scheme come across in the USA, if the scheme was pushed as a solution by Obama (or any other President for that matter?
@26 Barry Woods
> running away?
The Black Knight always triumphs, I take it?
Keith, I appreciate your blog and comment policies and have been following it since last year. But I have to ask, does your zero tolerance for outright nuttery extend to the other side as well? What about those that are always making the discussion about a big oil or corporate greed conspiracy? This is often used to smear positions/people that don’t agree with AGW and IMO is no more valid nuttery that the UN takeover nuttery. Sure corporate greed is alive and well, but some in this group of nutters try to quash discussion/debate by invoking this the evil oil/corporation conspiracy theory.
Direct link for the above comment:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/14/politics-of-climate-expertise-part-iii/#comment-32675
Dave H..
a reference was made to ‘eugenicists’, I asked for a link, and you provided a link to not the actual comment,just the article with 745 comments in it..
If you right click a comment you can find the URL to go directly to that comment…
I do not have time to wade through it..
are their people being rude, yes, soemone started callimg me a deniar, three times, it was eventually spotted, moderated and removed..
Judith is away, at not on top of it, try emailing her.
Eugenics by itself is a valid analogy, in context, ie it was a well estblished historial movement with all sorts of political establishment figures attached to it, that 20 years later everyone had quietly forgotten about it..
So a comparison of AGW to eugenics need not be offensive, in context it could be a paralell.
I’m not saying there are no offensive remarks there, would be the first to ask for them to be removed as well. Context please.
Barry #26 – how about this http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/08/politics-of-climate-expertise/#comment-30129 or this http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/01/evangelicals-and-environmentalism/#comment-27264
JimR (33)
It should be apparent to you that I get just as much flak from your counterparts on the other side anytime I say something less than flattering about something Joe Romm or Michael Tobis has written. It should also be apparent that I have little tolerance for the constant stream of climate apocalypse rhetoric. And so on.
So I get grief from all sides. And that’s why I’m linked to by toenail fungus sites.
Dave H, I just read that interaction on JC’s. IMO you’d come across better if you didn’t appear to be given to drama-queenesque flouncing.
“Your apology is accepted.”
Is this, in the best traditions of climate sciences, a modelled apology that you’re accepting? I see no observational evidence to support its existence.
timing as ever..
followed the link. and I would agree, Mike has stepped over the line from being amusing to being offensive….
But by one commentor, you would condemm a whole blog?
Bart,
The aspect I am trying to say runs more along what JimR is saying.
You have taken her UNFCCC-based IPCC criticism ‘too personally’. This type of criticism of the IPCC has been offered before in the literature too; she is not the first one doing it. Many climate scientists have accepted this foundation for their IPCC-related activities without examining it too closely and therefore when the IPCC is attacked, they feel under attack. Those who distinguish between their profession and the IPCC are constantly goaded to be offended by criticism of the IPCC.
I think climate scientists should slowly disengage from IPCC agenda-driven funding and projects. Of course, it is easy for me to say, I am outside all this stuff and my livelihood does not depend on climate science. But as an interested observer, I think this is the way to go. Climate scientists should dissociate from the UNFCCC, re-associate back again along exactly similar lines, but without the convention’s definitions and aims driving the assessment process. Secondly the assessment inter-relation between authors and reviewers (with authors getting to adjudicate reviewers’ comments) should be reversed and made the same as classical peer-review. Of course, this is not going to happen easily, but it can.
If you read the comments to the IAC IPCC review, it is really strange in some ways. So many scientists and policymakers are completely ignorant of the IPCC’s own ways and rules. They think everything is OK with the IPCC and many don’t know anything about the UNFCCC at all. They think they are just doing “geeky science stuff” which “is all they want to do” and “be left alone doing it”. Quoting from the Coby Beck from his Curry criticism:
“No conspiracies, no alterior motives, no malfeasonce, just geeks doing science”
This is just nonsense and it is simply not true. “Just geeks doing science” is not true in the modern world, and if you are saying that to counter Curry’s criticism, you are just shying away from reality and retreating into fantasy.
barry @ #39 – I think if you look at the two different links I gave then you will see a number of commenters discussing and agreeing with each other how similar eugenics and AGW are., so no, not one isolated case.
e.g. hunter, David L. Hagen, Jim Owen
Hey Keith, I regularly get hits from people looking for information on diets, I guess because of my post on a rooty solution to my weight gain problem, a slightly tongue in cheeck reference to unit roots allegedly proving that there is no global warming.
Not as bad as toenail fungus though…
@Simon Hopkinson
Perhaps your criticism of my “apology” comment would carry more weight if I hadn’t been responding to a baseless smear – one that has been shown to be untrue and is well deserving of an apology.
> I see no observational evidence to support its existence.
Quite.
@Barry Woods
> But by one commentor, you would condemm a whole blog?
This followed months of fruitless and ever more pointless exchanges. Straw. Camel’s. Back.
Also, for context, this was not long after Dr. Curry posted a new code of conduct – code that many commenters in this thread blatantly violate.
In the same thread I believe she did delete (and ban) a commenter who was by all accounts vigorously (and abusively) pushing an anti-“skeptic” agenda.
Bart (42).
I’m partially joking, as I know all blogs get their share of spam.
On a separate note, here’s a quote via RPJ’s blog, (from a commenter) that I thought you would appreciate:
In strategy the longest way round is often the shortest way there; a direct approach to the object exhausts the attacker and hardens the resistance by compression, whereas an indirect approach loosens the defender’s hold by upsetting his balance.
I had an emeritus professor of atmospheric physics do a drive by. Left a comment and on his blog he quotes me and his response. Calls my blog a denial blog and fails to link or to show my polite reply. Maybe scientists lack blog social skills. It must very difficult for judith to keep on top of the volume of comments that it generates.
Oops trying to type and spell on a touchscreen blackberry. Just been given an old phone
@47
Big boy pants, Barry, as Lucia would say.
Dave H, I don’t see how you’ve proved your point to the point of deserving an apology – even one that you’ve embraced and accepted, despite its distinct lack of corporeality.
All I can see is that you’re unusually easily upset and appear to be earnestly seeking excuses to reject discussion/interaction. You do very much remind me – in fact you seem to me to be the embodiment of – everything that hindered the peace process in Northern Ireland.
On reflection, your attitude is precisely the type NOT needed, nor your input desirable, in the process of moving towards resolution and reconciliation in the climate debate. I wholeheartedly and unreservedly support YOUR decision to depart from proceedings and implore you to stay away for as long as possible.
@49 ‘Big boy pants’
Can we say that to the whining by Trenberth about ‘deniers’ ‘attacking science’ and Santer’s complaints about dead rats at his doorstep, Keith?
@Simon H
> I don’t see how you’ve proved your point to the point of deserving an apology
Lets see:
> Bob Koss@29 – Dave H has no defense for his remark. Don’t expect him to provide one.
That’s both a statement of incredulity as to the existence of evidence (evidence that comes up as the first result in google if you just search on the words I mentioned) and a statement as to my lack of integrity. At 30 I provided a link that unequivocally proved my point. Use of “eugenicist” has been allowed to stand in several threads, in clear violation of the blog code of conduct there. There’s a defense, and there’s me providing one. The original comment was unnecessarily confrontational and easily refuted. The right thing to do would be apologise, no?
But it seems you’re intent on directing this *away* from my point about the degeneration of Climate Etc. and instead into a personal attack on me? So, in response:
> unusually easily upset
I am not upset, but your attempt to impugn my character and disparage the substance of my statements is again noted. I am just pointing out I’ve given up on a blog that won’t enforce its own code of conduct, and if Dr. Curry is happy with this standard of discourse, that’s her prerogative. But then you seem to think it is unusual to be upset about “eugenicist” being cast about as a casual insult?
Shub, as another reader recently noted, you and many of the commenters on this thread (and the Delingpole thread) display an amazing capacity for the “yeah, but..” defense.
Was I talking about Trenberth and Santer here?
Fer christ sakes, can’t any of you just call a spade a spade for once–even if it means taking your own to task? The flood of rationalizations made here of late, be it in response to my criticism of Jeff Id, Delingpole, etc is amazing and quite evident of tribalism.
Even in the mild little rebuke to Barry, telling him to buck up now that he’s a blogger somehow makes shub think of Trenberth and Santer. Puhleaze.
But tell you what: when someone leaves dead rats at Barry’s doorstep, it’s totally fine by me if he wants to whinge about it.
49# I actually found it amusing,
ie an example of how climate scientists (some of them) just make things worse for themselves..
I responded on his blog… (2nd to last)
http://blog.seattlepi.com/robertbrown/archives/235719.asp?page=2#comments
(anyone know anything about Professor Robert Brown – I’ve not come across him before)
Keith,
You are casually dismissing a specific example of misrepresentation pointed out by Barry.
Trenberth and Santer could have casually dismissed and waved off the rats and the ‘deniers’ just as easily too. Instead they chose to raise a hue and cry. Why did they not take the high road?
It is not a “yeah but…” spade.
For the record, I am very tribalistic. I belong to the Delingpole tribe, no reservations. I belong to the KK tribe too. Just wait until you see anyone saying funny things about you.
I think anyone can sense people when they put their personal energies into their efforts rather than a sterile position- or issue-based effort. My defense of Jeff Id and Delingpole therefore is just a string of coincidences.
Dave H:
“Let’s see” – I saw. As I said, nothing so notably incorrect as to justify the demand (or theft, no less) of an apology from Bob Koss. You didn’t make a case, you gave an example where you clearly over-reacted to a single commenter. You must be very proud.
“The original comment was unnecessarily confrontational and easily refuted.” – but instead you flounce out of the forum swearing never to return. There, there.
“I am not upset, but your attempt to impugn my character and disparage the substance of my statements is again noted.” – oh noes, I’m on report.
“But then you seem to think it is unusual to be upset about “eugenicist” being cast about as a casual insult?” – Wait, you are upset or you’re not upset? Could you pick one and stick with it? I’d assumed that you were upset, given not only the door-slamming of your departure from one blog but your determination to spread the announcement of that departure over two blogs. Do what you want, Dave, but don’t expect others not to point out the banality of it.
Keith,
That’s a nice one indeed, in true martial arts style.
@Simon Hopkinson
Calm down, and answer me these questions three, if you please:
1. Is it “eugenicist” an acceptable term to use disparagingly in a forum where personal insults are forbidden?
2. Is it good form – when deciding to no longer frequent a forum you perceive as engaging in unacceptably poor discourse – to inform the moderator of such and give them the opportunity of redress if that is their desire?
3. Do you have anything to say at all about the substance of my original comment – that the standard of commentary at Climate Etc is now so poor and so far skewed in one particular direction that one can conclude that Curry’s original stated aims of bridge building are a failure?
Also, you misunderstood that the second snippet of mine you excerpted was referring to Bob Koss, not the thread on the other blog.
Keith, sure you get flak from all side and I appreciate your attitude that causes it. But nuttery is nuttery and personally I feel the folks with the big oil smears and corporate conspiracy theories are worse than the UN takeover conspiracy crowd. When talking about AGW the oil/corporate smears/nuttery are much more common and I rarely see any blog owners splash cold water on them.
In the end such nuttery is just a distraction from bigger and better discussions.
“I feel the folks with the big oil smears and corporate conspiracy theories are worse than the UN takeover conspiracy crowd.”
Let’s just say they are equally as bad, for diplomacy’s sake.
@Simon Hopkinson # 56
Also, here’s a summary of the chain of events:
Me:
> have washed my hands of the place after references to climate scientists as “eugenecists”
Barry Woods:
> would you care to link to that actual “˜eugenecists’ quote
Bob Koss:
> Dave H has no defense for his remark. Don’t expect him to provide one.
Me (on second attempt):
> http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/14/politics-of-climate-expertise-part-iii/#comment-32675
Now you:
> nothing so notably incorrect […] You didn’t make a case
I reference a quote, I get questioned on it, I link to it, and you claim that I have not rebutted the remark over my ability to defend my quote? Curious.
Dave H:
1. No insults are “acceptable”. But they happen. Some people don’t like the name “denier”, some don’t like the term “alarmist”, heck some people even want the word “Climategate” banned! I’m not a big fan of overbearing moderation policies or censorship. If people are determined to make an ass of themselves, that should be their prerogative. If people want to abandon the forum because it’s not how they like it, I support them in departing. When the collective result of whatever policy or lack of policy is a vibrant and informative debate – with or without superfluous flak flying – then as far as I’m concerned it’s a win.
2. Once you’ve announced that you’re leaving the forum, never to return, I see no point whatsoever in contacting the moderator to complain. If the debate were truly important to you, you wouldn’t have abandoned it, so the only justification for whining at the moderator is to attempt to use your departure as some kind of “I really mean it!” leverage for your own ends. Levers, reinforced with one’s own self importance, are invariably weaker than you expect.
3. No, not really.
– Do I disagree with you that there’s snark and vitriol? Sure, on both sides.
– Do I think it prevents discourse? No.
– Do I think it gets in the way of discourse? No, I just read past it.
– Do I think JC’s failed to build bridges? Only with the most infantile.
– Are they important to the debate? No.
Do I think Bob Koss owes you an apology? No, I think you should return the one you stole.
61# Dave H
if you look carefully some of my replies and yours crossed over in timing. your original link went to an article with over 700 comments. I asked for a direct link, as I was typing you had pre-empted this..
I agree, some of those comments went from being in bad taste humour, to offensive. Equally there has been as many comments the other way on that blog… Louise get some abuse (which should be moderated) yet she is not a totally innocent party, her main aim seem sto be to distract. I tend to just filter her (and the ‘Iron Sun’ Guy ) out, as distractions from a topic.
Let us not get distracted from a good blog overall
For the record, I don’t necessarily have a problem with isolated puerile or offensive remarks in a comment thread (such as the ones Dave H alludes to), or even outlandish ones, of which prompted my post). Hell, they can be mighty revealing (except, of course, when a blog host disappears his own comments).
But when I see an offensive string of remarks go unchallenged by the blog host, well, that’s what I find disconcerting. And when I see the same commenter or commenators spouting the same wacky drivel–without being called on it–well, I find that disconcerting too.
@Barry
I meant to comment on the overlap but I got a bit sidetracked earlier – unfortunate timing there and my mistake in taking two attempts to get a direct link to the relevant bit of a (mammoth) thread 🙂
Dave H,
Google site:judithcurry.com eugenicists doesn’t return that page.
Thanks for pointing out the correct thread where you elucidated on your standards:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/14/politics-of-climate-expertise-part-iii/#comment-32676
“> with its holocaust-denier “hook”
A hook popularised and reiterated pretty much exclusively by those on the receiving end of the label, and not one inherent to the word itself.”
I find it illogical that you object to people discussing use of the word “eugenicists” while failing to apply that same standard when you are offended.
Bart
Can we get back to Curry and Lisbon?
Could you please tell me why criticism that contends that some climate scientists have benefitted career-wise and otherwise, from their association with the IPCC, is a broad-brush attack on all climate scientists? Indeed, as it was pointed out in your thread comments, her criticism actually funnels very well toward only those who fit the profile she describes and yet, is criticism of a phenomenon rather than specific people. Why should the rest be offended?
Don’t you think it took courage on Curry’s part to do this? I know for a fact you wont find many people like that, in my profession. People speak the most vicious things in private, in front of students and other underlings who can only nod, but are very polished and oblique publicly.
I’ll also admit. Curry can be seen as building a bridge towards this ‘extended peer community’, and at the same time, setting fire to her own end of the bridge, by doing this.
Maybe it is time the IPCC clique stopped acting like prima-donnas and reconciled with Curry.
Keith: “But when I see an offensive string of remarks go unchallenged by the blog host, well, that’s what I find disconcerting.”
My Outlook RSS feed subscription is collecting comments on Judith’s site at a rate of roughly 1,500 comments per week at the moment. It’s been more in the past. I think it’s important to give some consideration for this.
Perhaps JC is due some criticism for not assembling a team of effective, responsible and like-minded moderators, but I’m pretty sure that she was not expecting Climate Etc. to receive the throughput it has and assembling such a team, in whom you can trust to make value judgements which mirror your own and which are above reproach, is prohibitively challenging and time-consuming.
@Bob Koss
Interesting. Just a straight google search for climate+etc+eugenicists did.
First result is one louise provided. When I searched a few hours ago the thread I linked to appeared as the fifth (!) result on climate etc. Its how I found it again… meh, google being capricious no doubt.
As to the rest of your comment – nice misdirection. I invite you to find an instance of me calling someone on that site a “denier” – a hard task, because that’s a practice I avoid *precisely* because it turns into a pointless row about supposed holocaust associations. I certainly don’t recommend it, but that does not mean I’m going to shy away from a debate about what it means. I maintain that invoking the word “denier” is not inherently trying to tar one’s opponent with the holocaust. Indeed, I maintain the reverse – that the people that imply the link most are those with most to gain by discrediting those that use the word.
In similar fashion, “evolution denier” has been a very useful analogue, but this has been very successfully subverted by opponents willing to brand AGW a “religion” and thus nullify any credulous/unthinkingly religious connotations that association might have.
So – anything in my comment there that would violate the code of conduct on Climate Etc? Anything? No? No – because I’m not advocating or abusing anyone – I am engaging in a debate about linguistic trickery and who stands to gain from it.
Dave H,
That is odd. I just tried your search string w/o site search and the first two links are to Judith’s blog, but neither are the correct link. Those are the only links to Judith out of the first thirty results. I wonder if different Google servers provide different results.
Nice misdirection yourself Dave. I never accused you of using the the word denier. I said your standards are logically inconsistent. You trivialized those who might find word denier objectionable, yet in your comment #25 you made the point that you consider eugenicists offensive and Judith failed to accede to your wish for it to be moderated out.
What is your guiding principle? Different standards for different words, or different standards for different people?
“I wonder if different Google servers provide different results.”
FYI, yeah, very much so indeed. Over an extended period of time it balances out, but there’s often a great disparity in results for new web content between Google servers in different regions, sometimes for several weeks.
/OT
Simon,
Thanks for the info.
Keith, You’ll note that tallbloke said it was HARD to be impolite and not impossible. he should have said, ‘its hard to be impolite to a stranger who just passed the bread to you.” As for families yes we often treat our families worse than strangers
I have with great regularity called tallbloke a nut, a sun nut, nostradamus, all sorts of impolite things. I pictured him as some old retired english fart who had nothing better to do than come up with crank theories about the sun and fight with Leif Svalgaard, whom I regard quite highly ( heck he came to a birthday party we held in the hood). In anycase, after about 5 minutes chatting with tallbloke ( he was not what I expected) I found some common ground, offered a few bits of advice, learned a bit and agreed not to call him a sun nut anymore, while I still think his ideas are out there on the fringe. And this didnt even require breaking bread. He had cigarettes and my nicotine low level light was on. Finally, As a libertarian I found it quite interesting to spend some time with people of wildly different perspectives.
Will it “solve” the climate problem? I’m not sure there is a problem, but I would never turn down an invitation to break bread or share a smoke with people I disagree with. Some people have turned down the invitation. That’s ok, we’ll invite them again. If you are ever in SF, let me know and we can hang out
I hear you, Steve. I didn’t mean to diss the schmooze value behind such endeavors, as I agree with the premise. (The seating arrangement at SOTU was gimmicky and will not change the partisan climate in DC, but I still thought it was a good idea.)
Anyway, I might be going through a cynical blogging phase. As long as I entertain people, then folks should ride it out with me.
And let me extend the same invitation to you, next time you’re in NYC.
“Can you be more specific about who is using the “Climate Issue” to usher in an Orwellian 1984?”
The question lies in being able to recognize ‘1984’ when it happens, …
“A climate tax corresponding to €60/ton CO2eq (equivalent carbon dioxide) on meat and milk could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from European agriculture by around seven per cent. If the land made available is used for bioenergy production, the decrease in emissions can be six times greater. ”
“This tax is not at all a matter of forcing people to become vegetarians but merely moving towards a slightly more climate-smart diet,”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110125084523.htm