It has been hard for me to keep up blogging, or even abreast of current news during my tour. With travel each day, and many days both a lunch and dinner meeting, it becomes an 18 hour grind. Mega kudos to Mr. David Archibald for his tireless navigation and good cheer. Without him I’d be lost here.
That said some disturbing things have happened. I’ve just learned of one this morning.
While on one hand we have an ugly climate science blacklist, on the other we have Tamino’s blog who has been the target of some legal complaint which prompted the removal of a post, ironically, one defending my rights. While I don’t agree much with Tamino, it is his “place”. He can say what he wants, it is his right.
Overall there’s too much pointless bluster and sniping in climate science. I wish there was a volume control.
Kids, can we just all “get along”?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“No.”
A few days of quiet contemplation for everyone would be a welcome diversion. :-/
Google it, its most likely for a non controversial reason and sometimes sent by mistake. …” others have this problem when they have put adsense or links to illegal software on their site” – think about it, WP is more concerned about rogue software, not opinions.
When we sit around my home…we have discussions. We have many different points of view between many friends, but we can still usually “discuss” things in a civil manner.
That being said, I do know people who believe that it is not civil to disagree with someone. I don’t know where this idea originated, but the belief seems to be that if you’re “discussing”, that means you all agree…but if you DON’T agree…you can’t have a discussion.
Seems very odd to me. It is a complex matter, no question…and I find it very similar to politics in that if you don’t like the president, there are all sorts of things wrong with you and your point of view.
And then there are those who want to see to it that NO civil debate takes place in either field…they thrive on discord.
Welcome to the human condition, I guess?
JimB
I agree, Anthony. I have learnt a lot of science since I started reading this blog and have learnt more than enough to be able to debate climate change with friends and neighbours and convince some of them that there is another side to the story and that some of the more alarmist positions are wrong and (occasionally) perhaps even deliberately so.
But the stance taken by Real Climate towards its opponents does it no favours and neither does the same arrogance or triumphalism emanating from the skeptics.
I am still open to be convinced that the pro-AGW lobby is right; I think it it unlikely since it seems to me that much of their science flies in the face of common sense and logic (as I see it).
As you say, Tamino’s site is his property and provided he stays within the laws of libel or other forms of defamation whatever they may be, he is entitled to express a view (and also to censor dissenting views if he wishes, though such action doesn’t move the debate forward).
I see increasing desperation among some supporters of the “warmists” (sorry, but I can’t think of a better shorthand; I don’t mean the term to be offensive in any way) but if this is only matched by equally unthinking and triumphalist outpourings from the other “camp”, then the debate is going nowhere and if a severe cooling (which seems possible) is just round the corner then we are going to need the assistance of those climate researchers and those who have succumbed to their blandishments in recent years.
This needs to be a serious debate, untainted as far as possible by personalities, and though we tend to think that the ad homs are all coming from the warmist side the “yah-boo” politics (as it is known in the UK) is not going to help any of us.
I’m with you … can’t we all just get along, even where we disagree?
Volume control, their methods are far more refined.
http://www.toonpool.com/user/323/files/shut_up_242485.jpg
People should take care not to become the ones they fight. or as Nietzsche put it, “Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.”
As Nigel Tufnel would say about the volume control, “Mine goes to 11!”
If the issue was about the science of climate, then yes. But it’s not about the climate or science. It’s about power and money, and who has it. This is a grown up game of “King of the hill”. And the stakes are very, very high.
I just read this amazing comment “Overall there’s too much pointless bluster and sniping in climate science. I wish there was a volume control. Kids, can we just all “get along””
I now need a new keyboard after having spat my coffee all over it. Has being “down under” made Anthony more laid back?
After the tone of the posts for many years, the abuse of mainstream climate scientists, one’s jaw is on the floor and coffee on the computer. So McIntyre, Mann and Jones should all get along !!
If one wanted to get along ideas on both sides need to be tested and debated.
And if you want to make a start getting along try presenting the Watts tour to CSIRO and BoM instead of pot shotting them from a safe distance at very opportunity.
I suppose it is ironic that he stifles debate and his debate got stifled, but that isn’t the way. Mr. Goodnight, put your big girl panties on and suck it up. What did they do to you over there, call you mean names?
I hope Tamino didn’t make the complaint hi’self? <– That's about how much I respect the dude, but he does have the good and proper right to give me reason for not liking him.
'Kids, can we just all “get along”?"'
Nope!
It's very simple really. When ever you have two or more sides, the only ones that do get along are on each others side, mostly. The different sides never get along, for some god forsaken reason. :p
But but but … they are the enemy! They must be destroyed.
A quote that coincidentally appeared on my “Quote of the Day” gadget today leads us to an aspect of the human condition that is applicable here.
“The very purpose of existence is to reconcile the glowing opinion we have of ourselves with the appalling things that other people think about us.”
– Quentin Crisp
Our destiny is to defend ourselves and our opinions, so while it is admirable to “get along” we are doomed never to agree. It seems utterly amazing that humanity has accomplished as much as it is when it is our fate to be in disagreement. How did we ever form the first government? How does a bridge ever get built? How did we get to the moon? Somehow we have acheived these things despite our fundamental underpinnings to hold onto our own world view. Looking back at what humanity has accomplished means “this too shall pass” and we will survive the fundamental disagreements over AGW.
P.S. If I can civilly discuss the possibility of the worthiness of evolutionary theory to explain the origin of species with people in the Church, I attend, then climate science should be able to be discussed civilly also. BTW, some people in my Church think I am rather strange, but they love me anyways 🙂
No, you are!
We can disagree without being disagreeable. It has been my experience that when discussing this particular subject, I remain calm and present my points, and the pro-CAGW person flies off the handle in a childish emotional display. I welcome a calm discussion, but have rarely found one. I have to admit that I am amused by the “peacock” display, as it is beautiful, but sorely lacks substance. The most shocking thing to most CAGW advocates is how “green” I am, as though the two have to be mutually exclusive. Funny that they seem to have a wrong headed notion of how skeptics really are. I suppose it makes it easier for them to hate us. Like a glacier that slowly and inexorably advances, so it is with the skeptic movement.
Just wanted to add that it would have been really funny if the volume knob at the top went to “11”.
oops, someone already got in the “11” joke while I was typing. Oh well, ….
DesertYote says:
June 22, 2010 at 3:12 pm
P.S. If I can civilly discuss the possibility of the worthiness of evolutionary theory to explain the origin of species with people in the Church, I attend, then climate science should be able to be discussed civilly also. BTW, some people in my Church think I am rather strange, but they love me anyways 🙂
Well perhaps you would like to condemn the paper by the, “computer maintenance man” after you do that, and we all agree it is way beyond the pall, then your doubtless fascinating off topic and diversionary discussion of evolutionary theory may make some sense.
Anthony Watts… And here the third case goes:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/climate-scientists-battle-press.html?etoc
As the one who made the complaint of libel against “tamino”, I’d like to remind everyone that there are a couple of limits to speech under our system of laws that even I know of. One is typified by yelling fire in a crowded theater, and can be criminal. Another is defamatory speech such as libel and slander, and it is a civil violation. It’s also against most Terms of Service on the net.
I recognized Anna Haynes from your original post even without the town, state or any names listed. Many of us who are not AGW believers in the Sierra foothills have had the occasion to meet Ms. Haynes under less than pleasant circumstances, including one SurfaceStations associate of yours, and so I eventually wrote a comment detailing my own first confrontation with Ms. Haynes, after she took credit.
I had no expectation of being allowed to post on “tamino’s” blog. I also had no expectations of being treated fairly, life isn’t always fair and that’s especially true in the blogosphere. I did have expectations that I would not be libeled, and never asked WordPress to have the thread deleted in its entirety, but what they saw in my complaint moved them to, in essence, do just that.
I wanted “Tamino’s” specific libels removed and the posts I made in my defense approved along with a couple of other recreational impossibilities but as far as I can tell, none of my requests were honored.
Unfortunately, I think the heat of the arguments will remain high for some time to come. I run into fewer and fewer who take exception to principled scoffers, but the worst of the rhetoric has yet to subside.
REPLY: Thanks for the explanation. The heated rhetoric is indeed sometimes off the scale there. – Anthony
According to James Delingpole
“So when dealing with the Warmist lobby, always remember these helpful tips: sup with a long spoon, know that they’re lying from the fact that their lips are moving, and when they leave, make sure to count your fingers and your silverware.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100044445/climate-change-sceptics-have-smaller-members-uglier-wives-dumber-kids-says-new-study-made-up-by-warmists/
Nine months ago I was hoping that all this would end in ridicule and not in anger, but the last thing Peter Bocking told me was that too many have died already. I no longer think we are all just going to get along. This was way too big and bold and destructive. Humans don’t just acquiesce to such as that.
==============================
like almost everything today the ‘climate’
debatemovement is packaged and sold as ideology. which is a clever way to get people to really commit to something.and most people hate to have their ideological beliefs questioned…they prefer security to freedom, certainty to…well,… freedom. yes i said it, most people are deathly afraid of freedom and responsibility.
oh, and ideology absolutely trumps reality.