Watts Readers to Climate Reconciliation: Shove It
The majority reaction to the Lisbon rapprochement from Anthony Watts readers is loud and clear. Here’s one representative comment:
I am violently opposed to the warmistas, their beliefs and their crusade to tax and control me. Let my language make it plain that I believe that this is a war.
No reconcilliation ““ no surrender.
Lest you think I’m cherrypicking the thread, here’s one WUWT reader sarcastically noting the angry, folded arms posture:
Well, it’s good to see that most comments on this post have paid exactly no attention to cooling down the rhetoric. Hell, half of them want to heat it up!
Meanwhile, over at Climate Etc, the reaction seems to range from bemused to not buying it. Scattered between them are those that feel the conference was “a fantastic step in the right direction to achieve better climate science.”
I don’t think I commented on the thread. I wasn’t inspired to do so, and not because I think negatively of the Lisbon undertaking.
Any psephologist will tell you that an election is decided by those who do NOT vote, rather than by those who do.
There are millions of hits at WUWT. You sample a few flaming comments and conclude that the ‘readers’ are thereby represented? A few angry posters does not a majority make.
Incidentally, I’m not ignoring the belligerence in the thread. It’s there and I see it. It’s disappointing but not unexpected. Some people clearly don’t have the decency to resist kicking a climate consensus when it’s down.
@2
Read the thread. I stand by my representation.
I found the majority to be mildly supportive and scattered among them were a few that were quite adamant a public hanging was in order. One person posting 10 times doesn’t represent a ‘majority view’.
It’s amazing how our minds amplify some messages and downplay others. Must have something to do with our ‘friend or foe’ identification instincts. .
*note – daughter #3 has been studying cognitive science at brown for the last 3 years. If I go over to Romm’s place even if he was agreeing with me half the time it wouldn’t register in my brain since my brain would focus on the 50% of disagreement.
When I guest posted for a couple of months over there, I was initially disconcerted by the reactions of some at WUWT to my lukewarmer spiel. It took a while to notice that they were actually in the minority (a large minority, but still…).
There are a lot of good people who read that blog and some of them comment. Let the thread develop and take a look in a day or so.
Blog comments represent the views of people who oppose the claims in the post. People who agree with the post generally do not post (at not in the same numbers).
Who is this ‘rapproachment’ supposed to take place between?
The various contrairians are to diverse and often incoherent to form a single block.
Going to have to go with Keith on this one. A disappointing initial result from the blog who’s original selling point was it’s politeness and enthusiastic willingness to engage ‘the other side’, no matter how many tomatoes were tossed it’s way. Sad to see this isn’t the WUWT of 2 or 3 years ago.
Judith Curry has a post up on Lisbon. She also comments on the point of diversity amongst contrarians raised by dorlomin.
Judith needs to clean up her extreme rhetoric first before calling for “reconciliation” and expect to be taken seriously among rational people.
http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/a-cadre-of-dogmatic-scientists-trampling/#more-874
http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/denial-chum-curry-style/
http://curryquotes.wordpress.com/
Many of the nutty things she says is right in line with standard WUWT followers. The only difference is that she should know better.
BRW who paid for that bunfest? Just askin’
#11, NewYorkJ, the links you provided contain such an overwhelming amount of dishonesty and/or inanity I am depressed to think people treat them seriously.
Calling your dismissal of Judith Curry asinine would be being generous.