Bishop Hill has yet another amusing entry on the post facto revisionism going on over at the oxymorinically named Skeptical Science blog run by John Cook. Add to that, Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also has an entry where he says he’s given up trying to have a dialog on science with that very website.
While this may be humorous, maybe even satisfying to some, it really illustrates the sad polarization that we have today over climate science. The polarization is so intense, that it almost precludes any rational communications.
Of course we skeptics can argue that we’ve been treated badly, and we’d be right. AGW proponents tend to argue that we are simply too stupid to communicate with, and that they have the moral high ground, and thus the means justify the ends. Here for example is a response to a commenter by Grant Foster, aka Tamino:
Espen | November 4, 2010 at 4:45 pm
I’m not sure why you need to be so rude, and I should probably leave and never come back … [edit]
[Response: I’m not sure why you need to be so stupid. Please leave and never come back.]
In some cases, like above, we can’t even get a word in. Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. seems to have the same problem over at Skeptical Science, he writes:
I have been commenting for the last several days on Skeptical Science in their post
SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
While there have a few constructive interactions, many of the comments are not only not constructive, but demeaning. I also spend considerable time repeating myself in answering their questions. I am disappointed as I was hoping that Skeptical Science was a weblog where a diversity of views can be discussed constructively. However, the moderators on that weblog failed to adequately police the comments.
After reading myself at SkS how grubbily Dr. Pielke has been treated in the dialog there, is it any wonder he’s chosen not to try anymore?
At Bishop Hill, he’s pointing out a timeline regarding Cook’s revisionism of posts and moderator response to posts. Again we see the same sort of problems.
But, hasn’t it always been that way since the very beginning of the issue? The combination of perceived moral high ground mixed with the educated liberal mindset, combined with a dash of anonymity, in my opinion, leads AGW proponents to revert to tribal mannerisms in dealing with others whom they perceive as inferior in intellect and creed.
On the plus side, this very behavior, which seems to be omnipresent in AGW proponent circles, (though skeptics have a few bad examples too) is part of the reason why skeptics are winning the war of public opinion.
Reading both of these posts is instructive:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/21/the-cook-timeline.html
================================================
Note to commenters, on some other blogs the Skeptical Science website is referred to as SS.com with the obvious violations of Godwins Law immediately applied. Such responses will be snipped here in this thread should they occur. We don’t need to demonize our opponents, as they are doing a fine job all by themselves through their own words an actions.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In other words:
[Hands over ears] La-la-la-la-la-la… I can’t hear you! Go away!
The most egregious recent example of course is Ross McKitrick’s description of Wolfgang Wagner as a “groveling, terrified coward”. Setting quite the example for your students there, Ross. Did he ever apologize?
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/345-4/#comment-54838
Look at it from their viewpoint. The “Team” has to know that they are supporting a lie. They are “scientists” on the wrong side of science. What do you have left when you live a lie. We are dealing with sad little men that are unable to break out of the corner they have painted themselves into. That has got to be a strange place to live in, and I imagine that even though the money keeps rolling in, the knowledge that their little trillion dollar scam will end one day has got to be weighing heavily on their thoughts.
When you think about it, their reaction to a real scientist when he drops by to point out some of their more obvious failings is exactly what I would expect from people who know deep down that they are nothing better then morally bankrupt pitchmen who are hawking a product that is making life harder for people all over the world.
Mis-quotation is a common theme from those types of posters. I commonly see them try to subtlely change what I said, so that it seems like I said something dumb. Then they have a straw man to easily defeat, in stead of responding to anything I really said. I’ve seen it done so regularly by the same people that I am sure they do it intentionally. Some of them are very skilled at derailing a conversation that isn’t going the way “they” want it to go.
I usually then quote myself and then quote thier misquote, and then point out that they are using a straw man argument.
That is usually followed by some name-calling such as “tard-boy” or something similarly offensive. I think the desire at that point is to completely shut down the conversation, as they know most other readers will stop reading the comments at that point. I’m almost convinced that some of them are organized volunteers, but that’s a bit too tin-foil-hat-ish. Am I the only one who feels that way sometimes?
The best thing to do is to remain aloof – as far as is practical. We can and must remain vigilant against nastiness and snark – but it has to be said that some folk do deserve it!
In the couple of years I’ve been following here, I have noticed that most of the commenters here are at least relatively civil – perhaps those pro-AGW guys can educate the ‘queen’ bees when they return to their natural ‘hives’ ?
It used to bother me that we weren’t really permitted to have a dialogue with those people at their sites. But, as time proceeded, I learned that it wasn’t that important, in fact, their aberrant behavior has been a boon to the skeptical perspective.
A while back, I had stated the time for serious dialogue has passed. It is time to move to ridicule, mockery and scorn. I believe the actions and words of the likes of skep sci and even better, Dessler and Trenberth, Mann and the whole cast of idiots that would be earth engineers have made a very good case that I was correct. We should just point and laugh at them. As far as the science goes, all we have to do is to continue as we have for the past few years.
It doesn’t do any good to debate whether or not the missing heat is in the deep. He’ll just “find” it somewhere else without actually observing it. Dessler? Just keep pointing to his idiotic response to SB11. Mann? Just point to what Trenberth said about openness in his response to SB11. Hansen? Well just point to whatever he last stated or did……. and the beat goes on.
Don’t forget to ridicule! It is a powerful tool in a debate.
James
And speaking of the grovelling terrified cowards Ted, they won’t even allow the science to be tabled-
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/labor-censors-dennis-jensen-denies-peer-reviewed-science/#more-17301
No need whatsoever to go down the Godwins Law route…..
The concept of an entire population suffering economic hardship and political oppression in pursuit of some half-assed ideology is far more reminiscent of the Soviet Union…
I think that Ross McKitrick’s description was an accurate one, to be honest. To try to take out the feet of someone’s paper by insinuation that there was something wrong (but no retraction), a dramatic resignation, then to write an apology letter to someone who could do damage to your career because you dared let a dissenting opinion be published – is certainly the act of a “grovelling, terrified coward”.
This poor example was magnified further by the fact that real scientists Dessler and Spencer, even though they disagreed with each other, started to work collegially on Dessler’s rebuttal of Spencer. (To be honest, this example these two men made have caused a lot of people in the fields on both sides of the debate look childish in comparison).
Anyways, Ted, if you took a while you’ll probably find that your note here will tend to stand vs on the other side of the debate, where you’d be edited out and ridiculed until you left. That is why people who have been AGW agnostic, such as myself, tend to like to hang out places like here rather than on the other side of the debate. The only shining exception being Scienceofdoom, which is pretty well run, fun and educational.
[snip – this doesn’t help, if you disagree with the commenter, don’t fall into the same trap of words, please rewrite/resubmit- Anthony]
How does Climate Change Community Protection sound?
REPLY: Like demonizing your opponent – Anthony
Aside from having a more civil and educated bunch of posters, I have to tip my Chuck to CTM for keeping things civil.
As it becomes more obvious that a confluence of natural cycles caused an incredibly minor global gross temperature increase and that AGW is insignificant, if at all, those who have invested all of their credibility in AGW are reacting poorly.
It would be far smarter to get out early as some former Warmists are in fact doing, rather than be proven the fool.
I am not a scientist but I have been impressed by the level of debate on this site in contrast to some others, I have learned a lot here and what is written is learned, academic and civil. Furthermore it has persuaded me to the more sceptical stance by virtue of the reason and logic exhibited by bloggers and scientists and, thank you has introduced me to Bishop Hill. Well done Mr Watts, this site is brilliant.
Ted says:
September 22, 2011 at 10:01 am
…………….. Did he ever apologize?
=========================================
Who? Ross or the groveling, terrified coward? Ross doesn’t need to apologize for being accurately descriptive. Wagner has apologized (allegedly), but not to the proper people.
🙂 thanks. i had an inflamed credulity gland but it’s no longer tumescent. it was from that rhetorical fallacio of the lusty trolls, you understand…
Sometimes demonizing your opponent is appropriate, especially when their side wants to make life short and miserable for millions of people. It is not an exaggeration to state that the Progressive Left have hitched their social engineering wagon to climate change and would certainly institute Politboro of the Enlightened if given an opening. In many ways they already have as so many of them man government agencies that operate outside of congressional oversight.
I have been using the AGW arguments for a while as prime examples of the modern use of Rhetoric (in the Classical sense, as opposed to Logic) as a tool for dabate.
All of the classical Fallacies of Informal Logic are manifested eventually. They are useful not because they lead to correct conclusions (as does Logic) but because they are especially persuasive when used on uneducated audiences. The Straw Man, for example, is almost inevitably preceded by a misquotation.
This is because the fallacies invoke immediate emotional responses that short-circuit logical responses (which take a bit longer to self-assemble).
As in classical debate, ad hominem attacks are the indicator of desperation driven by a deficit of topical substance (intellectual bankruptcy). They are usually followed by emotionally-generated insults (profanities from the less erudite). When the insults are formally exchanged by both parties, the argument collapses into either a ‘draw’ or a brawl.
James Sexton says:
September 22, 2011 at 10:16 am
=====================================
Along that same line…..
I can’t understand why we’re still having a conversation about it at all.
If there was ever an epic fail, it’s computer climate games………..
Not even accounting for temps falling, sea levels falling, etc etc
How in this world can anyone still believe in computer climate games, when the heat is missing?
If you can’t find the heat that the computer games says has to be there………..
Gary Swift,
Your comment on wearing a tin hat may have some merit. Think of it this way, one has to wear a tin hat (hardhat) in a construction zone. Seems to me that’s what we have in Climate Science – a construction zone, or at least it should be with all the variables that exist.
Of course, many of the people who model climate conditions point to the model and say “there’s your proof!” Which is like an architect pointing to the concept model of a proposed building and saying he’s actually built it.
Mike
“When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!”
Basically, if I leave any comments whatever at a pro-AGW site, the more sense my comment makes, the more they resort to running in circles, screaming and shouting. All this does is convince rational people that the Pro-AGW crowd is well aware that they are in danger and their proposition is highly in doubt.
As stated in this article, their childish and socially unacceptable behavior merely makes people who don’t know much about the issue or who are on the fence gravitate towards the side of the fence where the people at least behave (mostly) with civility and act like reasonable human beings.
You have 2 choices: you can hang out with a guy at the pub who berates you and calls you an idiot (or worse) every time you disagree with him, or you can hang out with a guy at the pub who rationally and logically tries to refute your argument if you disagree, and even occasionally admits that he is wrong if your argument ends up making more sense than his.
Who is more likely to become your drinking buddy at the pub?
Here is a typical example of the output from one of The Team, none other than Peter Cox Professor and Met Office Chair in Climate System Dynamics at the University of Exeter, UK, and a Lead Author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Mr Steamshovel channels Mr Squiggle!
Steve McIntyre it seems to me is somewhat misguided in his critique about the failure of The Team to keep on giving and giving and giving…
Keep your stupid data chaps, just keep up the Pythonesque output with it because we all need a damn good belly laugh nowadays.
Ted,
Calling someone a coward is ok with me, if it is your genuine opinion that they have indeed acted in a cowardly manner.
Calling someone an idiot simply because that person disagrees with you is NOT ok with me, especially if the person who disagrees with you has made a well-presented, logical, and cogent argument which argues against your case and deserves a serious response.
You may or may not see the difference between those two statements.
Latitude says:
September 22, 2011 at 10:55 am
James Sexton says:
September 22, 2011 at 10:16 am
=====================================
Along that same line…..
I can’t understand why we’re still having a conversation about it at all.
If there was ever an epic fail, it’s computer climate games………..
———————————————————————————-
Exactly, that ship has sailed. It isn’t like these people are going to have an epiphany and say, “Gee, we’ve been a little harsh on the skeptics, maybe we should listen to what they have to say!”
For those fantasizing, that’s not ever going to happen. These people are totalitarian misanthropists convinced that a proven failed economic system is the appropriate direction for the world. They are lost to society.
For those that believe Dessler’s concessions and cooperation with Spencer is genuine, just re-read the introduction to Dessler’s original response to SB11. It was an intentional mischaracterization. These people don’t suddenly change in the way they deal with their fellow man. Zebras/stripes, leopards/spots.
Sorry a bit off topic.
[REPLY: Yes it is off topic. There are a number of threads here dealing with CERN and Svensmark’s theory. CHeck those and post your questions there. -REP, mod]
Jeff