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.
Heh, thanks for highlighting my attempts at communicating with Tamino. Here’s what I wrote, unsnipped. I wouldn’t have complained if he only snipped away “puddle of dirt” 😉 – but the rest is IMHO very on-topic:
I’m not sure why you need to be so rude, and I should probably leave and never come back to this puddle of dirt again, but I’m a persistent person, and being a mathematician myself, I don’t like people who play cheap tricks with statistics and simple math, so I’ll try once more: The situation back then wasn’t NOT X, quite the opposite, it was very close to X when we measure it with the best metric we have for such a long time range: Long term temperature measurements of the high Arctic. The fact that ice conditions may have been very different (we don’t know for sure, we have no good measurements from before the seventies) doesn’t make NOT(X) out of X, especially considering that the whole point of your little statistical game is that the ice conditions are due to AGW, i.e. mainly a function of atmospheric temperatures!
After a few more posts I was blacklisted, and I don’t really mind never commenting there again, I think it was a pity that I never was able to answer some of the decent commenters addressing me further down the thread.
Sorry, there was a “but” missing in my last sentence. Corrected version: “After a few more posts I was blacklisted, and I don’t really mind never commenting there again, but I think it was a pity that I never was able to answer some of the decent commenters addressing me further down the thread.”
Steven Mosher says:
Nice. Huh? Basically I went on to RC and noted that Steig and I agreed about something and said that was a good thing.
Good grief, that’s really over the top. Some people could need a personal assistant helping them from damaging themselves in online conversatiosn 🙁
Unlike most of you here I believe in AGW. But Im critical of individual scientists and bits and pieces of the science. I dont like data hiding.
“most”? Are you sure? I thought most didn’t rule out at least a minuscule human contribution to warming…. I may be a slightly “cooler lukewarmer” than you are, but ever since I discovered that Climate Science has some serious quality issues, I never really stopped considering the existence of AGW as highly likely. It’s just that I think the C in CAGW is highly unlikely (AGW being benign or even mostly beneficial is IMHO a more likely outcome than the armageddon scenarios), and that I don’t really think we at this point can give any numeric estimate at all of how much of the recent warming that is anthropogenic.
Last year I did get some constructive comments when I wrote on several AGW supporting climate sites when I posed as a totally ignorant novice who was genuinely trying to understand some issues and asked for their forbearance and patience. I was kind and polite and despite some ad-homs and insults being flung at me immediately, some others were kind enough to indulge me and engage in rational discourse to try to explain their views to me, pointing me to certain papers etc… I appreciated their patience and was always polite to them. After some backwards and forwards, inevitably we ended up looking at the world through computer modelled glasses, and when I was ignorant enough to ask what the actual measurements and observations showed, they lost patience with me and preferred their modelled projections over actual empirical observation and the real historical record (particularly pertaining to “newly” discovered islands near the coast of Greenland, which inconveniently also existed and were mapped in the 1930s). I have not been back to those sites since.
Wattsupwiththat grants me the patience and time and space to comment without being banned, whether my views agree with aspects of AGW or not. I have learned a LOT more here than I could have at the other sites which censor discovery rather than explore it.
Roger Pielke turned his comments off. That’s as lame as Gore saying that the debate is over. I’ve lost some respect for the man.
gallopingcamel,
Thanks for the links to the little ice age and the one questioning the certainty of climate chage by some climatologists.
Mosh
Those are really horrble over the top comments made about you. Sceptics are a very broad church and I’d be surprised if evetryone agreed with everything that all the others say about AGW. Agreeing that warmists have a point sometimes is not a sign of weakness but of maturity.. I remember siding with Joel Shore once about something Hansen said. Facts are facts and sometimes even climate science has those 🙂
Brian H
We did a much more than ‘back of the envelope’ calcuation a few months ago
This is from Verity’s blog;
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/quantifying-co2-mitigation/#more-2403
Our article on the ‘futilty of carbon reduction’ is quoted in the first paragraph which went very throughly into the costs of Co2 mitigation and potential temperature reductions. I ran the answers past 15 of the worlds leading climate scientists. Its evident that whilst spending much time on calculating the likely temperature INCREASE, they had spent no time on calculating what potential reductions could be achieved by even the most agressive carbon mitigation programme.
My co author Ed Hoskins further calculations -made as a result of the comments received on the original thread- is then incorporated in to his further series of updated articles available from the link above. My answer to Mosh at 12.15am was based on this reality.
tonyb
Steve—
“Moshpit’s been sidling up to RC lately doing his unctious passive-aggressive routine on their thread about the Spencer – Dessler papers.
It’s almost as if he’s forgotten what a vile entity he is.
It’s rather like if you were sitting on a park bench and a pool of black slime, fizzing with AIDS, cholera and necrotising halitosis oozed over to you, tapped you on the ankle and said it wanted to be your fwend. And anyway you made it the way it is.”
This is what you get for *agreeing* with somebody? Staggering.
And on top of everything else that’s wrong with this comment, it’s an insult to people living with AIDS.
How nice for them to hear that AIDS is lumped in with “black slime…cholera and necrotizing halitosis”. And this from those who shriek loudest about political correctness and the need to be sensitive to everyone’s feelings.
Does anyone else see the breathtaking hypocrisy?
For that I am branded a vile Aids infested creature
I need a laugh. Could anybody please remind me again why ironic references to They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named would be “demonizing our opponents“?
Steven Mosher says:
September 23, 2011 at 1:48 am
While Ted is contemplating the horrible thing that Ross said about Wagner, I’ll suggest a little trip to see the real evil .
Here is what you find said about me ………………………………………..
===========================================================
I can’t believe that comment was allowed. That said, the statement by this “chek” person only shows the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of this “chek” person.
Mosh, I’m glad you have thick skin. It makes the discussions that much more interesting. But, that statement by “chek” was way over the top. (Note to self……. when agreeing with lunatic scientists, be prepared to be compared to vile diseases.)
Espen says:
September 23, 2011 at 3:21 am
“most”? Are you sure? I thought most didn’t rule out at least a minuscule human contribution to warming…. I may be a slightly “cooler lukewarmer” than you are, but ever since I discovered that Climate Science has some serious quality issues, I never really stopped considering the existence of AGW as highly likely. It’s just that I think the C in CAGW is highly unlikely (AGW being benign or even mostly beneficial is IMHO a more likely outcome than the armageddon scenarios), and that I don’t really think we at this point can give any numeric estimate at all of how much of the recent warming that is anthropogenic.
In my opinion, this is where we all somewhat go wrong – it is not “AGW” that is somewhat likely, it is “ACC” that is somewhat likely. (Anthropogenic Climate Change) We are certainly doing some things that may have an effect on the climate, either cooling or warming, noticeably on local scales.
The “C” is not simply highly unlikely it is extremely doubtful due to a lack of evidence that anything we are doing is dominating any form of global climate change. It, the “C”, is the fear mongering that allows the conversation to go from climate to energy.
Sparks,
If you like the left-field science of ancient aliens, then I can thoroughly recommend the following site;
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/
The latests posts are excellent in showing the fundamental flaws in the underlying principles of the CAGW arguments using simple physics. If you delve into the older posts you get into some really “out there” ideas that I think you may enjoy.
I think we are getting a little too sensitive to Godwin’s law. many a time I will refer to democrat underground dot org as du dot org. So the reference to skeptical science by its initials is not in and of itself a reference to nazism. That being said, I really do not care to use outdated and stale analogies when referring to close minded sites. I think just the evidence of their own words is enough to make them a laughing stock.
mhklein,
“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.”
You make a claim, but fail to back it up with any citations, quotations, or evidence. If you really did follow WUWT, you would clearly notice that the vast majority of the discussions and disagreements are clearly less vitriolic than those found at Real Climate, Skeptical Science, or virtually any other Pro-AGW site. At WUWT, we have a tendency to prefer logic and the scientific method over ad hominem, straw man, appeals to authority, and name-calling. When such things do pop up, the moderators do a very good job of getting rid of the stuff that doesn’t constructively add to the discussion.
Sure, we have disagreements here, especially because ANYONE can post, regardless of whether they are a skeptic, a lukewarmer, or someone who is fully convinced of AGW. And I will admit that sometimes the disagreements get a bit testy. However, WUWT tries very hard to keep the discussions and disagreements as civil and as scientific as possible.
If you truly think WUWT is no better than the warmist sites, I encourage you to give us some evidence so that we know what you are actually objecting to.
note: also posted on BH
——————-
Still, my treatment of Skeptical Science (SS) is that if a mostly rational commenter or poster on an open/uncensored/un-manipulated blog makes a referral to SS, then I might visit SS specifically for that. Otherwise, if I want to get the same content as at SS then I can just go read the problematical AR4 and the associated info on climategate (and many associated other ‘gates).
John
Kevin, I would suggest you do some proper reading before running in to trash Roger Pielke Senior. He never has had a comments function on his blog at any time. So he did not “turn his comments off” lately. He has never had them on at any time.
—————-
Anthony,
Sad? On the other hand, an extremely argumentative world is very good supporting evidence of an extremely free world. In climate science, with it extremely argumentative nature, there is an extremely free space of intellectual and scientific openness, in spite of the unseemly rancor.
When I have doubts about the climate science situation (or any other intellectual subject) there is a quote that always inspires me.
My view is the more argumentative an environment the better it is in all ways. Extremes of incivility, aggression and misuse of anonymity will be simply self-regulated just like the Ancient Greeks and the resulting Western Civilization, in the long run, have always done.
Anthony, thanks for your venue which help makes the above stuff to exist.
John
John
Reading your post I am reminded of the Greek Sisyphus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus
He was fated to push a giant boulder up a hill then watch it roll down again. As an exercise in pointlessness it is only matched by (some) Western Govts sheer futility in trying to reduce their own puny carbon emissions for so little effect Very few other countries -with much bigger boulders -appear as willing to roll them up the hill as we are.
.
tonyb
James.
Ya I have a thick skin. I found it ironic. chek actually described a couple of my friends to a T, both homeless vets. With luck this week the one with AIDS will get housing. The other one hides in the bushes and alleys and sleeps in doorways. Finding him is always a chore. One of the debates that Tom and I have with our fellows who believe in AGW is the balance between our obligations to those who are currently suffering versus those who will suffer when the warming catches up with us. For me, I have more compassion for that guy in the doorway, than I do for the millionaire who’s beachfront property may be inundated a century from now
——————-
tonyb (climatereason),
Thanks for your comment.
Mythology can instruct.
The condemned repetitive activity of the Sisyphus myth has some faint familiarity with the eternal rebirth myth of the Phoenix; the former being less inspiring than the latter.
I think a more positive mythological view of the current situation in climate science is the Phoenix myth rather than Sisyphus. Reborn periodically with freshness sounds good to me as myth supporting the idea of periodically inspiring new science.
Note: I find the Icarus myth as being punitive of the idea of new science in a mythological sense.
John
Jeremy says:
“If another group silences debate, stifles discussion, and berates and marginalizes those who disagree, is it wrong to call them narrow-minded activists? Is it wrong to draw parallels between behavior of present day people and other large movements in history who did the same thing with very bad results?”
I presume you’re referring to those skeptical of the CO2=CAGW hypothesis. If so, you have your facts completely wrong. It is the CAGW crowd that runs and hides out from debate. Far from ‘stifing’ debate, skeptical scientists very much want debates. Lots of them. The alarmist crowd avoids debates because they invariably lose. Why? Because they lack any convincing evidence to support their failed hypothesis. The planet simply is not doing what they predicted, what they expected, and what they told millions of people would happen.
Therefore, the “narrow-minded activists” are the true believers in CAGW. And yes, it is wrong to equate scientific skeptics with “other large movements in history who did the same thing with very bad results”. Comparing people who simply have a different point of view with the Holocaust is about as vile as you can get. Instead of excusing that behavior, you should become a stand-up guy and reprimand anyone on any blog who labels someone with a different opinion as a “denier”, a “denialist”, etc. But for guys like you it’s much easier to spread hatred. You do it simply because you don’t have the facts or evidence on your side.
•
Steven Mosher says:
“…those who will suffer when the warming catches up with us.”
Really? Why would a slightly warmer planet cause suffering? It is cold that kills, and the planet has been much colder in the past. That is worrisome; more warmth isn’t. It has been several degrees warmer in the geologic past – and during those warming episodes the biosphere teemed with life.
Finally, when is that missing warming going to catch up with us? That sounds like Trenberth’s mysteriously hidden heat in the pipeline. But there has been no acceleration of global warming since the LIA, despite ≈45% more CO2. Your model has failed, Steven. Time to re-assess.
John
Good analogy with the Phoenix but what about the Hydra? Every time you think you have cut one head off this mythological beast it promptly grows two more. 🙂
tonyb
————————-
tonyb (climatereason),
I like the Hydra myth for reference to the climate science situation. But to be fair, we probably need two versions.
First version of the Hydra myth for climate science is the AGW by CO2 view. They fear the skeptical Hydra because they worry that if they cut the funding to one skeptic’s paper then two more get funded by the evil ultimate conspiracy theory of big oil. : )
Second version of the Hydra myth for climate science is the skeptical view. Skeptics fear that if they cut head off of one AR4 & AR5 gray source of literature, then two more gray sources replace it. : (
Hey, what about the myth of Athena springing forth fully armed and grown from the forehead of Zeus? Sort of like climate science of AGW from CO2 springing forth fully (politically) armed and formed from the forehead of the ideological environmentalism of the UN’s UNFCCC without involving normal process of growing up and development via the unbiased/non-politicized open and transparent scientific process? : )
We are getting in pretty deep here with the mythology thing. : ) But heck, it is Friday night . . . relax and (if Anthony & Mods let us) go with it.
John
Dear Moderators,
My post to tonyb (climatereason) did not go into the normal “Waiting for moderation” mode, it just disappeared. So would you please check the wordpress nether regions? Some nethor spirit may have grabbed it.
Thanks, as always.
John
Lets hope that AR5 turns out to be like achilles and has a fatal weak spot
tonyb