tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post8377875143507170649..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: Well this is funJames Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-18965742209321488712012-02-28T17:30:15.685+00:002012-02-28T17:30:15.685+00:00Brian: "I'm certainly open to other appro...Brian: "I'm certainly open to other approaches, but I think just the fact that HI wants to do it suggests it's going to help them and hurt the effort to mitigate AGW."<br /><br />I suspect that calculation is based on their assumption of a continued non-engagement by their opponents.<br /><br />Look through their literature--it's rife with the assumption that you guys never actually are willing to debate them (and they present this to their sponsors as strengthening their case).<br /><br />If they had one of their whatchamacallit conferences and the usual 95+% of people who accept global warming were to actually show up, their intended message would get drowned.Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-28563006180579372582012-02-28T15:18:33.198+00:002012-02-28T15:18:33.198+00:00As to whether "your approach is really workin...As to whether "your approach is really working and you really have this "under control," that's easy to answer - no, we don't have it under control. <br /><br />I'm certainly open to other approaches, but I think just the fact that HI wants to do it suggests it's going to help them and hurt the effort to mitigate AGW.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-28200504194835605482012-02-28T07:09:36.696+00:002012-02-28T07:09:36.696+00:00Regard local debate on AGW education--and speaking...Regard local debate on AGW education--and speaking to winning strategies---it's not a battle HI has any hope of winning, the numbers aren't there for them, either personnel or funding.<br /><br />(In military strategy terms this is known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeat_in_detail" rel="nofollow">defeat in detail.</a>)Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-10629478255012885582012-02-28T07:04:00.092+00:002012-02-28T07:04:00.092+00:00Thanks for your comments, Brian.
I'm not sure...Thanks for your comments, Brian.<br /><br />I'm not sure my views are as cramped as you think. Of course I recognize that Heartland is behaving as activists, they obviously aren't pro-mitigation advocates when is the only distinction I meant. <br /><br />On this though, "For tactical reasons we shouldn't give them an opening to spread lies to children, and for moral reasons we also shouldn't."<br /><br />Of course I agree with the general sentiment, but who gets to decide what is truth and what is lies? Can't people make up their own mind on what is true if given good enough information, without having to be spoon fed?<br /><br />It does sound like you are advocating a form of restriction of speech though---only your platform should be allowed to be taught to children.<br /><br />Is this not true? Is it the children you don't trust, or the parents and teachers?<br /><br />I'm not necessarily advocating including their literature into student education, but I'd like to see it debated in public. I see people saying dumb things as a teaching moment for those with open minds, and try and make use of the opportunity when it avails.<br /><br />My inclination is to let the local communities make the decision, and welcome the opportunity for pubic debate, and especially engage local scientists to speak (on either behalf). This seemed to work out (as well as it ever will) with respect to attempts to get creationism taught in science class.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-peter-gleick-incident" rel="nofollow">I'll admit this is sort of my approach</a><br /><br />"Better information is information that people notice. It’s information that’s tailored to what people are interested in. The response to denialism is not alarmism, it’s context. I think it’s surprising how genuinely interested members of the public are in scientific subjects, and how woefully inadequately they are served by their general sources of information. There’s a huge role for scientists and journalists and educators in providing better information. We can do a lot more. The vast majority of the public doesn’t know what to think about climate change."<br /><br />When I talk to lay people, that's pretty much where I find them... receptive, but confused by contradictory information sources. <br /><br />Please excuse the skepticism here, but I think it has been earned: Given the hot mess that AGW activists have made I would like to see some real proof that you guys actually know what you're doing, that your approach is really working and you really have this "under control."Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-10829611544265017002012-02-28T02:30:39.439+00:002012-02-28T02:30:39.439+00:00Carrick, no one can't keep HI from speaking, i...Carrick, no one can't keep HI from speaking, it's about whether they can insert misinformation and lies into school curricula.<br /><br />I think your discussion of being on defense is cramped and doesn't reflect the reality of activism (the other term for activism could "politics"). You keep distinguishing HI from activists - of course they're activists, just like those of us on the other side. We're not morally equivalent, but some of the tactics and most of the strategic analysis of how to win applies to either side.<br /><br />Of course you don't debate when you're winning - standard tactic of frontrunners in political campaigns. And while denialists are on defense overall, as to the curricula issue they're on offense. For tactical reasons we shouldn't give them an opening to spread lies to children, and for moral reasons we also shouldn't.<br /><br />Activism has to be evaluated at both tactical and ethical levels. At tactical levels, both sides should have similar conclusions as to what's the best approach, but ethical evaluations are different.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-56634201691606257352012-02-27T19:00:52.747+00:002012-02-27T19:00:52.747+00:00Brian I was asking something slightly different he...Brian I was asking something slightly different here. I admit I have no experience or expertise with activism (nether does it appear do many who term themselves activists).<br /><br />Is the goal to prevent Heartland from speaking, and if so, why would trying to prevent them from talking make your position look better? <br /><br />To address your comments, technically you can't win by playing defense, you can only avoid losing, and hope the other side plays themselves out. But they've no where near the resources the activists do, so what the's the problem with direct confrontation of their belief systems here? <br /><br />I've never seen anybody win by refusing to debate, unless they've already won (you avoid debating if you've won because then it can only hurt you), but you guys are losing ground with the public (and you've hardly won at this point), so what gives?<br /><br />Why the refusal to engage mano-a-mano?Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-90483866259324544802012-02-27T18:14:20.919+00:002012-02-27T18:14:20.919+00:00Carrick, keep in mind that the HI "education&...Carrick, keep in mind that the HI "education" effort is in the field of activism, which you don't appear to consider part of your expertise.<br /><br />I do have some expertise in some aspects of activism. In my career, I've won much more often than I've lost when I'm on defense, trying to stop something I oppose, rather than trying to achieve something I support.<br /><br />Climate denialists and their backers are on defense, mostly, and the HI effort fits into that defensive activism of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Inserting their slick package of lies into the educational curriculum in the conservative 30% of the US population in states controlling the minority of US Senate sufficient to maintain a filibuster, isn't going to help or lead to a productive debate. It's about good defensive work, by the bad guys.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-83949728320888942072012-02-27T15:54:43.265+00:002012-02-27T15:54:43.265+00:00John was is the goal here?
Is it to discredit HI,...John was is the goal here?<br /><br />Is it to discredit HI, prevent them from presenting their views, or something else?<br /><br />It seems to me strictly from a Socratic perspective you want them to try and articulate their viewpoint.<br /><br />Since they are largely wrong, wouldn't it be fairly easy to dismantle them in a public debate?Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-17829881712332392892012-02-27T08:39:28.864+00:002012-02-27T08:39:28.864+00:00Since the back-and-forth seems to have died off, I...Since the back-and-forth seems to have died off, I offer a related, factual issue, that of Heartland's education plans. Many people went nonlinear over the 2012 plan, but this was old hat, Heartland has been trying this for years, ineptly enough that Wojick's proposal may have been a step up.<br />See <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/fakeducation-years-heartland" rel="nofollow">Fakeducation For Years From Heartland</a>. Do not miss the 5-minute trailer from Sovereignty International, which has better-than-expected production values and a very earnest spokeswoman.<br /><br /><br />See also Gareth Renowden's nice dive into the <a href="http://hot-topic.co.nz/heartland-on-education-theyd-like-to-teach-the-world-to-lie/" rel="nofollow">lesson plans.</a>JohnMasheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08174651130367553996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1703782370408326202012-02-26T01:24:39.981+00:002012-02-26T01:24:39.981+00:00Incidentally, and not pointing at anyone in partic...Incidentally, and not pointing at anyone in particular, but perhaps some of the rhetoric could be dialed back a bit...James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-88850169925176579202012-02-26T01:21:13.433+00:002012-02-26T01:21:13.433+00:00Carrick,
I think that backs up my point about Gle...Carrick,<br /><br />I think that backs up my point about Gleick's interest in ethics being primarily as a stick to beat the sceptics with. Which makes the schadenfreude even more acute.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-18610786605676001092012-02-26T00:56:56.063+00:002012-02-26T00:56:56.063+00:00Here's an amusing and timely link (ok I was lo...<a href="http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/categories_of_deceitful_tactics_and_abuse.pdf" rel="nofollow">Here's an amusing and timely link</a> (ok I was looking at Anthony's website, I was bored, sue me).<br /><br /><i>Table 1<br />Categories of Deceitful Tactics and Abuse of the Scientific Process<br />(source: P.H. Gleick, Pacific Institute, 2007)<br /><br />There are many tactics used to argue for or against scientific conclusions that are inappropriate, involve deceit, or directly abuse the scientific process.<br /><br />Personal (“Ad Hominem”) Attacks<br />This approach uses attacks against the character, circumstances, or motives of a person in order to discredit their argument or claim, independent of the scientific evidence.<br />Demonization<br />Guilt by Association<br />Challenge to Motive (such as greed or funding)<br /></i><br /><br />Count how many of these tactics Steve Bloom has used in two, back-to-back comments.<br /><br />Is it really the goal of climate activists to antagonize the entire scientific community? I'm just asking because that seems a bit counter-productive to me.Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-45491224758055662772012-02-26T00:05:26.648+00:002012-02-26T00:05:26.648+00:00What is that twaddle you're even on about now,...What is that twaddle you're even on about now, Steven? I've no idea.<br /><br />I take this vapid response as evidence that you are admitting you were lying in your previous comment claiming I was a libertarian [*]. This should go well your already well deserved reputation as the Asperberger's Syndrome poster child.<br /><br />[*] Clues for Sherlock: a) If you find any writings of my on libertarianism, it will say something along the lines that it is another washed up political theory from the 19th century. b) I've never written any commentaries on Singer, I have no idea what is organically wrong with his brain but it's a bit creepy, kinda like with Bloom. c) Michaels and Idso? Clowns on parade.Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-17152717556261792352012-02-25T23:44:30.119+00:002012-02-25T23:44:30.119+00:00Just keep your eye off the ball, right, Carrick? ...Just keep your eye off the ball, right, Carrick? And maybe try growing out your forelock so it covers the big red "Culture Warrior" stamp on your forehead.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-24175644327762991592012-02-25T22:24:10.183+00:002012-02-25T22:24:10.183+00:00Bloom: "So the evidence would appear to be th...Bloom: "So the evidence would appear to be that you just really, really dislike the "left-wing" variety of activist, who as coincidence would have it are the ones in support of the science"<br /><br />Actually I think you "left wing variety activists" don't actually accept the science, because I think you lack the both intellect and the training to understand it. You only make an appearance of accepting the science when it fits in with your agenda, and you ignore it when it doesn't.<br /><br />It's just lip-service to science when it fits your very-non-science driven activist agenda, little more.<br /><br />[Obviously this is an over generalization. There are people like Bert who don't at all fit that characterization.]Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-79439330821470202652012-02-25T22:03:57.750+00:002012-02-25T22:03:57.750+00:00More bizarre, barely sentient nonsense from Bloom....More bizarre, barely sentient nonsense from Bloom.<br /><br />I'm not a libertarian and I don't have any idea why he's thinks that I have any regard for the work of Singer, Idso or Michaels or that I share any libertarian views of theirs. They aren't even on my radar as interesting to read.<br /><br />Bloom should either point to where I've ever commented favorably on either of these three, or Bloom should admit he makes up trash about other people. <br /><br />Is there a "I don't accept the work of Fred Singer" form I forgot to sign? LOL, what complete idiocy.Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-4504900829214378462012-02-25T17:57:19.423+00:002012-02-25T17:57:19.423+00:00Gee, Carrick, you talk such a sciencey game and ye...Gee, Carrick, you talk such a sciencey game and yet your content is just standard-issue libertarian concern trolling. Go figure.<br /><br />Y'know, for your routine to have even a shred of credibility we'd need to see a lot from you on the little "science" industry composed of Singer, Idso, Michaels, etc., yet oddly they don't appear to bother you much. So the evidence would appear to be that you just really, really dislike the "left-wing" variety of activist, who as coincidence would have it are the ones in support of the science. Go figure.<br /><br />At risk of repeating myself, yes, you're really that transparent.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-42324018233500272152012-02-25T04:15:29.412+00:002012-02-25T04:15:29.412+00:00Brian thanks for the comments.
I'm not sure a...Brian thanks for the comments.<br /><br />I'm not sure anybody likely to donate to HI is going to be dissuaded from doing so by anything an activist like Mashey writes. <br /><br />Personally, I've never been particularly convinced by Mashey's rhetoric and have let him know that, probably earning me a place in his "kill file", not that I could give a crap one way or the other.<br /><br />Some people can handle critical comment,s others just go apoplectic. Either way it tells me something.Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-57880570338353310032012-02-24T20:51:52.833+00:002012-02-24T20:51:52.833+00:00James - if I were Gleick's lawyer, I'd tel...James - if I were Gleick's lawyer, I'd tell him that I will quit the moment he speaks publicly without my prior consent, and then never give my consent. He can't help himself on legal issues by talking about any of this, only hurt himself.<br /><br />His PR guy is probably giving the exact opposite advice tho.<br /><br />Carrick - speaking as an activist, I can tell you that activist groups on any side of a spectrum will use any excuse to try and raise money. Whether HI expects to raise money on net from all this is a totally different question. They seem to get very little from small open solicitation donors, while their big donors might be scared some, esp. Mr. Anonymous and esp. because of violations that John Mashey dug up.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-43622392686697068802012-02-24T19:30:04.276+00:002012-02-24T19:30:04.276+00:00Posted for the popcorn eaters,
here's the ema...Posted for the popcorn eaters,<br /><br /><a href="http://fakegate.org/" rel="nofollow">here's the emails that Gleick exchanged with HI</a>. That's actually an amazing regarding the amount of effort that Gleick went to a lot of trouble in impersonating a board member. What a hero. >.<<br /><br />There is also a request for funds by HI at the bottom of the link. <br /><br />I'm not asking that people here donate, ;-) but it's obvious that HI thinks the scandal helps with the fund raising.Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-29644735375328024192012-02-24T06:03:00.280+00:002012-02-24T06:03:00.280+00:00If Carl's not an activist, my apologies for br...If Carl's not an activist, my apologies for branding him as one. ;-)Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-23524217112694660952012-02-24T04:26:21.651+00:002012-02-24T04:26:21.651+00:00I don't think Carl is really an "activist...I don't think Carl is really an "activist", he just seems to hate the US right wingnuts - and it's hard to fault him on that :-)<br /><br />I am surprised to see the number of people lining up to present pitifully poor arguments that Gleick is innocent of the "fake" (eg <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/evaluation-shows-faked-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-authentic" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/joe-bast-fake-document_b_1297042.html?ref=tw" rel="nofollow">here</a>). ISTM that there are a number of steps he could take to support his claim, but he has not yet done so publicly. There could still be a lot more egg to be worn on various faces.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-81371662193133719842012-02-23T23:50:12.036+00:002012-02-23T23:50:12.036+00:00Carl C, I choose not to put my last name on blogs...Carl C, I choose not to put my last name on blogs, it's a choice I make for reasons that have nothing to do with you. But I generally try to provide enough information that you would have no trouble tracking me down, as andrewt pointed out. This isn't that different than Tamino not broadcasting his name, but he makes it really easy to figure out who he is none the less. <br /><br />You asked a question about my background, I answered it as well as I needed for you to answer any further questions on your own, and I would guess the real reason you didn't like my answer is because of the bind it puts you in. I could give you links to papers that I think are cool, but they are behind pay walls so I'm not sure that would help you much.<br /><br />You also misrepresent my criticism of you,but I think that is obvious to anybody who's bothered to read the thread to this point.<br /><br />Peace and be done with it.Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-57561682127296148842012-02-23T21:58:59.514+00:002012-02-23T21:58:59.514+00:00I did take a peak but there's a lot of "C...I did take a peak but there's a lot of "Carrick's". Anyway if he feels the need to remain anonymous, fine, it just doesn't say much for his "arguments" (such as they are). <br /><br />First - I offered my opinion on how this is like an Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers "leak" or Wikileaks -- Carrick spun it as (somehow) stomping on the freedom of speech of him, HI, and James Annan. It's odd that Carrick can consider right-wing think tanks such as HI & AEI as some sort of "level-playing field" to enhance democracy, ie the spreading of misinformation & propaganda is somehow better than truth & scientific findings in a democracy. Very Orwellian indeed.<br /><br />Then he somehow makes a leap to I'm "not a critical thinker" based on this. Then he won't say what his papers are that makes him such a pompous ass. I mean, hell, Fred Singer (of HI ;-) can point to a long list of papers he's on and he's still a sellout nutjob. But at least I know where that nutjob is from. I mean hell I'm on two Nature papers but never consider myself a scientist (I'm a hell of a computer geek though! ;-)<br /><br />well that's my last word on the subject, I think it's been flogged to death by now!Carl Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14717209873111026574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-16892152332642653162012-02-23T21:49:03.747+00:002012-02-23T21:49:03.747+00:00CarlC, given Carrick's uncommon first name and...CarlC, given Carrick's uncommon first name and the details of his publications you can quickly verify what he says w/google scholar.andrewthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04585528907970103334noreply@blogger.com