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.
I frankly don’t really care much what an insignificant website like Skeptical Science and an equally unimportant person such as John Cook has to say about anything, particularly climate science.
In fact, I wouldn’t really care about climate science at all were it not for the fact that a bunch of insane lunatics who purport to be “climate scientists” want to destroy our economy and way of life. My mission is to cut these people off from any source of public funding, thereby making them fend for themselves in the private sector (where they can publish, speak, and pontificate to their heart’s content).
I have posted [under this handle] on skeptical science but my experience was not good.
The posts are still there so you can see how I was treated.
I was hoping to learn from and interact with knowledgeable people who might refute some of my beliefs [and just possibly agree with others] but I was disappointed.
First let me explain my knowledge [belief] of climate.
I believe that the climate since records can be explained by 1/2 ° C warming per century plus a 60 year sine wave as many skeptics do
The overall warming is so slow that it is of interest to climatologists but politicians can’t exploit it.
At Skepticalscience I would post on a thread about the 60 year sine wave and someone would respond that this wouldn’t explain the fact that it got slightly warmer over time. When I responded about the causes of the 1/2 ° C warming per century I was declared off topic and chewed out.
If I posted on a thread about the long slow warming someone would claim that the supposed acceleration of warming from 1978 to 1998 couldn’t be explained without CO2 and if I responded with the 60 year positive El Nino [PDO] cycle I was declared Off Topic and chewed out.
If the intent was to make me go away and stop posting IT WORKED !!!
I don’t believe the intent was to have an intelligent conversation about climate the intent was to silence dissent.
I nominate Whatsup to fill this void. [I wish I could post graphs in my replies.]
I also wish more true believers would comment on these threads.
Really, then few here have participated in the Globe and Mail (Canada) newspaper on AGW. Same with the National Post newspaper (Canada). This stuff is extremely mild to what I’m used to on a daily basis. The hard cold facts are skeptics on similar sites as I mentioned above where I participate must have a very thick skin and be capable of responding from a range of outright hate to sarcasm to facts and the manipulation of each combined. There in the rough and tumble world of the free for all you can’t survive without activating a full range of responses and give better than you receive across the board. This is a world not for the faint of heart – yet this is the real world where AGW journalists push their drug. Here skeptics meet the AGW many headed hydra in all out war. Each side constantly unloading their best and then some. And in this little war facts matter because this is the one total failing on the AGW side – few, very few understand any science what so ever. Which gives us skeptics the hard edge. And we use our weapons ruthlessly. That’s just the facts.
WUWT is calm and well mannered as is Steve’s blog and others. But here IS the science needed for out there in that other world I mentioned. Here and on other sites is where us Skeptics rearm, retool, and go back into battle armed to the teeth. BTW, we NEVER lose a battle what ever the level merely because our range of knowledge is infinitely better to that of the level of the AGW side. In essence Global Warming then is a many sided confrontation and each has its place in the scheme of things.
Skeptics, do not feel singled out for unfair treatment by warmist sites. Welcome to the club. For example, Huffington Post carries readers’ comments that are mostly left-liberal. There is a reason. I regularly contributed critiques there for nearly a year before they decided to blackball my contributions. Yes, I was banned by HP, a distinction I wear (conservatively) with pride.
Gary Swift says:
September 22, 2011 at 10:13 am
I have seen the same beaviour both SkS and RealClimate. Gavin Schmidt does not do that. his flunkies do the dirty job for him
Here’s an example of the righteousness executed in the name of global waming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world/africa/in-scramble-for-land-oxfam-says-ugandans-were-pushed-out.html
Pull My Finger says:
September 22, 2011 at 11:55 am
Here’s an example of the righteousness executed in the name of global waming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world/africa/in-scramble-for-land-oxfam-says-ugandans-were-pushed-out.html
=====================================================
Yes, it would be different if this was a unique instance, but it isn’t unique. In every aspect of the implementation of the ideas generated by the CAGW hypothesis only works to rob people of the land, wealth, and liberties. The ideas are the antithesis of freedom, prosperity and treatment of all with basic human dignity. If one wonders what the world would be like if the alarmism had become accepted by the world’s populace all one would have to do is look at SkS and the other blogs and periodicals. Dissent isn’t tolerated and history is revised.
Some people read Nineteen eighty-four and took it as a warning, other took it as a playbook.
Wil says:
September 22, 2011 at 11:32 am
“But here (WUWT) IS the science needed for out there in that other world I mentioned. Here and on other sites is where us Skeptics rearm, retool, and go back into battle armed to the teeth.”
Well said, Wil !
WUWT provides the resources to educate our selves and others on AGW . Like voting in Chicago, we should educate ourselves ‘early and often’. Likewise, we can’t be apathetic about using the knowledge gained here to educate our families, friends, legislators and educators. This is essential work to the slow but steady progress being made in the public arena, refuting the false assertions of impending doom from AGW proponents, their flawed science, and the draconian economic measures they advocate.
Anecdote:
Two men were standing at a bus stop conversing. One man said to the other “There’s only 2 things wrong with humanity: Apathy and Ignorance!”
To which the second man replied “Well… I don’t know about that… but who really gives a damn, anyway?”
A curious mind can overcome ignorance, but an apathetic perspective is much more difficult to engage, educate, and stimulate to take real action. Yet, it must be done.
The folks at SkepticalScience are pussycats and pretty well informed compared to those who hang out with Joe Romm at Climate Progress.
I’m very open-minded about all theories and I’m very tolerant towards other people’s beliefs and views, I enjoy reading up on mysteries and watching documentaries, I’ve even watched and enjoyed the recent history channel documentary Ancient Aliens, I don’t have to agree with anything at all in the documentary but it’s food for thought, But lets suppose one day the ‘Ancient Aliens theory’ was accepted and promoted as being mainstream cutting edge science and political figures around the world said there was a consensus, that we had all better pay a tax to prepare the planets population for the return of our Alien masters, I would expect to see some sceptical critique and resistance against the scientific consensus of the ‘Ancient Aliens theory’ and a demand for Empirical evidence supporting the theory.
So why is there such hostility towards a respectable and healthy sceptical critique, calling for Empirical evidence supporting the theory of the once ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ and now ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’ which has wild and outlandish claims in support of expensive taxes regulations and carbon dioxide markets?
I follow and comment on hundreds of blogs, and sometimes I even behave myself, the only sites I read but never comment on are Climate Sites that I consider extremist or hostile in their opinions
(Except for one time, when I actually got an alarmist to admit that a certain Climatic Zone hadn’t changed, despite the article he wrote suggesting it had..HA) But even when taking the time to try to understand opposing views or science by way of asking questions it can end up in a hissy fit or foot stomping tantrum and it always ends up with obvious violations of Godwins Law, of course that’s when the fun starts /src and the insults start to fly.
I also think the ‘Ancient Aliens theory’ is more fascinating and those scientists who research it and debate it are a lot friendlier to criticism, and they get a lot of criticism. Go Figure!!.
“Skeptical Scientist” is not oxymorinically [sic] named. It is a tautology; a redundancy, if you prefer.
Economics Research Fellow Paul Roderick Gregory observes:
Highly recommend reading Gregory’s article: Can We Really Call Climate Science A Science? to see how other researchers/scientists see “climate science”.
Skeptical Science is not an oxymoron – it is tautological.
The dynamics of this discussion are reminiscent of past dust-ups that I’ve had when attempting to question elements of a local school budget proposal. Some people are so emotionally invested in promoting increased education spending as a way of demonstrating their own sagacity and enlightment and beneficence, that whenever anybody or anything threatens it by even a trivial amount, a truly astounding volume of viciousness spills out.
The ad-hominems and furious name-calling (“anti-education”, “Neanderthal”), irrational defensiveness, and phony straw-man arguments that have been hurled against me are strikingly similar to the tactics employed by the “true believer” CAGW proponents. My only “crimes” involved pointing out that the local school board had published a misleading graph of expenditures (which exaggerated benefits while improperly diminishing expenses), or demonstrating that the school board had used cherry picking in choosing the “bookends” of a graph of student enrollment levels to falsely imply that current levels were unprecedented, or suggesting that planning of desk space square footage had not taken into account the shrinking in size of personal computers.
I strongly suspect that “noble cause corruption” may be implicated in both situations. I have had obviously highly-educated people make obviously nonsensical arguments (for example, the fact that they have worked with computers the size of a whole classroom is evidence that the size of school PCs is not expected to get smaller) in order to counter an undeniable proposition that I have made. I have had a former professor write highly erudite sounding paragraphs amounting to nothing of substance in order to muddy the water and give the impression that my criticism of a demonstrably flawed and incorrect graph used by the Board of Education was somehow wrong.
Surely in other endeavours and pursuits, these people are fully self-aware, capable, and rational, however when certain deeply-held beliefs are challenged, those qualities get pushed aside and something darker takes over.
It would be amusing if it were not so depressing…
I’ve been following WUWT for quite some time and I find that climate skeptics are guilty are the very same bad manners that they accuse their opponents of having. I’ll take you folks more seriously when you start treating AGW proponents with more respect.
Skeptical Science moderators intervened and gave me a dressing down when I suggested that supporting the shooting of thousands of polar bears per year while shouting that they were endangered sounded like double standards. I was also condemned for using rhetoric and suggesting peoples views of climate science often said more about them than the science itself. It seems to me that the moderators on that site abuse their positions by not facilitating debate and promoting discussion, but using a Taliban like adherence to climate orthodoxy to stop any deviation from the holy flame of climate truth, and to condemn anyone straying from the path of accepted concepts. As a left wing old hippy, environmentalist and luke warmer that sort of approach sounds suspiciously like totalitarianism propaganda of the sort we saw in extreme right and left wing dictatorships. Fascist approach to climate science? maybe not, but definitely heading down that road.
This was a spot on post which I copy with due thanks to the author:
The degree of dishonesty at SkS can only be appreciated by closely following the postings in real time to understand the degree to which the moderators abuse their powers by removing posts by those making sensible arguments against the established “truth”, often without explanation leaving no trace, yet allow the SS team players infinite latitude in abusing or denigrating those who bring original thinking to a table dominated by contributors who merely present parrot fashion, the work of those who they consider to be the holders of the truth.
I wish I had written that!
mhklein says:
September 22, 2011 at 12:49 pm
I’ve been following WUWT for quite some time and I find that climate skeptics are guilty are the very same bad manners that they accuse their opponents of having. I’ll take you folks more seriously when you start treating AGW proponents with more respect.
————-
Respect is earned NOT given.
Misapplication of Godwin’s Law Anthony. I’m afraid you are using this law to tell people how to say things, rather than trying to keep people on topic. Godwin’s law was birthed on usenet as a general rule to know when a thread had run it’s course. It was not a way to control the use of words, parallels, and analogies when having a dialogue. If the topic in question involves behavior on which the name fits that is a different story and making such an analogy is not only appropriate, it’s likely good for the discussion.
Godwin’s law is essentially being used now to stifle discussion, the irony is amazing.
mhklein …
If you can’t see the difference in behavior then nothing said here can help you change your mind …
“The polarization is so intense, that it almost precludes any rational communications.”
I actually think it has been quite a good thing for them to have brought this point out in the open. Men like Pielke are fundamentally honest and fair, and men like that have a difficult time really accepting that their opponents are not. We have long since passed the point where rational communications are possible with the AGW crowd; which is why it is now purely a political fight, and one side is going to win and one side is going to lose. Our goal now must no longer be trying to witn them over, but rather to find ways to support putting people in power who will defund and destroy the AGW’s base of support. This is no longer an academic debate, this is political war.
good news – our side is winning. Hence all the screaming from theirs.
MHKlein; do you not understand that what is going on is not just “bad manners” but a fundamental trashing of the entire basis of scientific analysis, being done by the AGW proponents? They are screaming “science” while *Every* *Action* they take violates every principle true Science is founded on! To imply that the two sides are equivalent because, in your opinion, not everyone’s manners are impeccable is ludicrous. That implies that there are no fundamental issues in play here; but in fact what is in play is the most fundamental issue of all – What is Truth, and how do we Come to it? You appear to think that the messaging is all that matters, regardless of the message.
Anthony, you say:
“…, 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.”
While you are absolutely correct, it is important to bear in mind that the idea of “polarization” is a psychological ploy by design.
The AGW promoters deliberately and aggressively place anyone who disagrees with their agenda in the position of being an enemy – more specifically a (non-credentialed)non-person, often namely: “Denier” or worse. They use word constructions that attempt to force any skeptic that disagrees with them into responding in a form that all too easily makes the skeptic appear as “raging extremist challenging the poor little AGW centrist”. More often than not it is the AGW promoter who takes an extreme position, even (or especially) when the difference in viewpoints is minimal. By maintaining an extreme position in opposition to skeptics the AGW promoters try to force consensus by peer pressure.
The best response to this pressure is simple – it’s all about “knowing your argument inside out.” and simply and politely ( and where possible “wittily” or at least good-humouredly ) holding steadfast in the face of aggressiveness. In WUWT you have created a great website which provides information for all of us to be able to do so, and I thank you (And the other knowledgeable contributors) for it.
But one small thing needs to be very closely guarded against and it is the idea often foisted on Skeptics that they should “compromise”, be less extreme – in other words: Adjust their argument to be just a little closer to that of the cuddly centralist idea of the AGW promoter.
While we must be careful not to fall into using silly nastiness like the AGW promoters, we also must be careful that we are not allowing them to determine the language under which we act. To me the idea of us being poles apart is part and parcel of the AGW strategy and I refuse to accept it as an agreed polarization as such. Rather the polarization is a product of their strategy and where possible we need to make unerringly clear that they are responsible for it.
Sorry for the rant, but I think it is a small but important point that gets overlooked.
Mac at Bishop Hill (“Cooking the Books”, Sept 20) sent this in
http://eureka.australianmuseum.net.au/EEF99C60-76BC-11E0-A87E005056B06558?DISPLAYENTRY=true
The public are on our side. But the above shows just how entrenched is the official science establishment.
When I did a U-turn from warmist to skeptic, Cook had a mere 54 “debunks”, each of which I had studied and found plausible, and therefore needed to deconstruct. It took a long time but I did it – if even one had remained, I would have stayed doubtful of climate skeptics. The full range of my deconstructions is what became my Climate Skeptics Primer (click my name).
Had I still been doing Climate Science near-full-time, I would be well into building a wiki to deconstruct each and every one of Cook’s “debunks”, to the level at which Cook (and official Science) could no longer ignore them. I actually set up a page. If anyone wants to take on this task please email me or just lift the whole page. Only problem of course is that Cook’s items are listed by popularity which constantly shifts, the list is forever growing, and MediaWiki finds the page a bit long, now.
There are two sites where skeptics and warmists can both post without being harassed and censored by the moderators. They are Whatsup and Climate etc.
I don’t see what the others hope to accomplish by harassing and driving skeptics from posting on their sites.
Realclimate is the worst. I posted about positive feedback being unstable and was directed to a humma humma answer and when I pointed out the moderators deleted my posts. I seem to have been permanently banned.
Skeptical Science is almost as bad, my posts are roundly panned by the moderators any good points I make are snipped. I am never disrespectful but the moderators don’t return the favor.
Their favorite trick is that if you have a 2 part argument 1 part or the other is always off topic so having a reasonable discussion is impossible. Why do they do that ? Are they afraid the committed will learn the flaws in their belief system?
I failed to emphasise, my last post was in response to the problem Anthony states here, of polarization and no dialogue. Quoting myself
I still think this is the way forward.
CAGW supporters making news often get quite a drubbing on WUWT (and deservedly so, in my view), but those who comment here and offer rational, civil arguments are treated with respect.
Unfortunately, while luminaries of the Climate Realist persuasion post and comment here, none of the self-styled ‘Climate Scientist’ elite have deigned to do so, despite invitations from Anthony. When they do, we will know that they have decided that science is more important than dogma, but I am not holding my breath.
/Mr Lynn