tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post4423884236070932607..comments2024-03-26T15:37:57.556-07:00Comments on Idiot Tracker: The Trouble with TamsinTheTrackerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10011829472333355911noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-18235474608433659042023-04-04T07:42:15.739-07:002023-04-04T07:42:15.739-07:00تم استخدام شيش الحصيرة كوسيلة للتدخين في جميع أنحا...تم استخدام شيش الحصيرة كوسيلة للتدخين في جميع أنحاء العالم لعدة قرون حيث كان يستخدم على نطاق واسع في <a href="https://alusolutions.net/ar/companies-installing-protective-shutters/" rel="nofollow">شركات شيش حماية في مصر</a>. وتعتبر شيش الحصيرة ، التي تعرف أيضًا باسم "النرجيلة" ، من الأدوات التي توفر لك تجربة تدخين راحة وبأسلوب مختلف. ولكن لأن كل شيء في الحياة يأتي مع عيوب ومزايا<br />CLADING2222https://www.blogger.com/profile/12736101882067160075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-86283885777246077162015-04-09T19:08:36.993-07:002015-04-09T19:08:36.993-07:00Good God, how did this post attract ALL the spambo...Good God, how did this post attract ALL the spambots?TheTrackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10011829472333355911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-546882745415556532014-12-08T21:10:43.783-08:002014-12-08T21:10:43.783-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.waleedgazdarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12527569463476388328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-86725849627374293082014-01-22T18:56:01.982-08:002014-01-22T18:56:01.982-08:00I agree. I hope all climate scientists do not hid...I agree. I hope all climate scientists do not hide the fact that they are really climate activists like James Hansen, pushing socialism and the destruction of free enterprise. That should give scientists tons of credibility with the public when scientists ask them to sacrifice economically.Freedom Fanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05799821534276323350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-39303220144397132352013-12-14T19:05:44.851-08:002013-12-14T19:05:44.851-08:00Tamsin, it would be useful if you reminded folk li...Tamsin, it would be useful if you reminded folk like Tol, Lomborg and Pielke to stay out of 1 as much as you ask others to stay out of 2 and 3. Moreover, if someone has something to say about 1, they also get to point out that the 2 and 3s had better accept that there is a problem and let us hear about what you propose to do about it.<br /><br />Like all of your ilk, you practice asymmetric warfare for which you expect praise. Eli disagrees with the Tracker.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-87770505363842568862013-12-14T12:08:24.900-08:002013-12-14T12:08:24.900-08:00It's absolutely admirable to know the limits o...It's absolutely admirable to know the limits of your own expertise and not try and claim authority outside of it. All well and good. But most real-world problems are going to involve a wide range of subjects, and if we cannot propose or support a plan of action unless we are experts in all subjects touched upon, then no one will be able to say anything.<br /><br />The scientists aren't economists. But the economists aren't scientists, and the politicians (and concerned citizens) aren't either. <br /><br />The premise of democracy has always been that the public discourse and decision making benefit from the participation of the knowledgeable. Eschewing all matters other than that exclusive to one's own discipline would effectively destroy that dialogue. TheTrackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10011829472333355911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-81271278237139970572013-12-14T11:58:31.561-08:002013-12-14T11:58:31.561-08:00Curry is an interesting case, because she started ...Curry is an interesting case, because she started rather closer to the middle and has become more and more of a conventional climate denier with time: repeating the myth of "climategate," accusing scientists of neglecting uncertainty and fearmongering, etc.<br /><br />It's not breaking any new ground in the psychological sciences to say that in arguing for something, especially against strong opposition, we become more persuaded of it, but in Curry this has happened to a really stunning degree, given her background in respectable climate science. She still gives lip service to the scientific facts, but emotionally she's selling denial pretty hard these days.<br /><br />What has happened to her comment threads is also fascinating. They've gone from being a mixed group of normals, lukewarmers, and raving lunatic deniers to maybe 90% raving -- classic case of "bad money drives out good."<br /><br />TheTrackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10011829472333355911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-39248967257454395732013-12-14T06:02:30.229-08:002013-12-14T06:02:30.229-08:00At the risk of belaboring the obvious, I observe t...At the risk of belaboring the obvious, I observe that climate "contrarians" are themselves the most strident advocates of policy you're likely to find. Furthermore, they began their advocacy before any climate scientists (possibly excepting James Hansen) took up the cudgels.Chris_Winterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14664395947020918727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-68720897903232447782013-12-13T18:16:35.576-08:002013-12-13T18:16:35.576-08:00"useful innocents" is another softer ver..."useful innocents" is another softer version of the term.<br /><br />How about "Watching the lukewarmers" (or as I prefer to call them, the "carbon mitigation deniers").<br /><br />The cranks like Watts, Jo Nova etc are a sideshow. And Curry is desperate to join them.<br /><br />It is Pielke Jr, Lomborg, Ridley, everyone at the Breakthrough Institute, etc who get the op eds, get to testify before Congress, get invited to speak at conferences. <br /><br />They pose more of a risk to an effective response to climate change precisely because they are not idiots. <br />MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-48559889852627565082013-12-13T08:00:49.737-08:002013-12-13T08:00:49.737-08:00This is me, I'm away from my computer.
To add...This is me, I'm away from my computer.<br /><br />To address your points:<br /><br />1. I'm bring this up now because I haven't don any significant blogging is the last few months, and this post has been rolling around in my head for most of that time. <br /><br />2. If you think it's going to "re-start the fire," you obviously haven't seen my site's traffic numbers.<br /><br />3. I don't think Tasmin is an idiot, and that's not what I said. The term "useful idiot" applies to a good-hearted person who for whatever reason, is somewhat naive about how their activism is being but to use.<br /><br />4. The blog is called "Idiot Tracker" because when I named it I thought it would be focused on people like Watts and Jo Nova, idiots by any reasonable definition. I did not know at that time that:<br />a) Others, like Wotts Up With That and HotWhopper, would do a better job than I could ever hope to.<br />b) Even had i stuck with my original purpose, it should have been called "Watching the Deniers." Still kicking myself over that one.<br />c) That I would ultimately get a little bored with raving loons (Monckton et al) and be more interested with people who manage to be wrong (by my lights) without being crazy or stupid (Edwards being a good example).<br /><br />If you would like to suggest a rebranding strategy, be my guest.<br /><br />5. "I also think that comments on honesty and trust are a bit rich when done anonymously."<br /><br />We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I see nothing dishonest about anonymity. And being anonymous means you cannot make any aurguments from authority, and you are inviting people to check your facts and take your words for what they are worth.<br /><br /> <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-26702804156203663492013-12-12T18:01:49.951-08:002013-12-12T18:01:49.951-08:00Something I think may be lost in all of this is re...Something I think may be lost in all of this is remembering to define terms, and imagining how others might blur terms.<br /><br />Assigning the role of ghg to CO2 and identifying anthropogenic emissions as a source of growing CO2 concentration leads immediately and inevitably to the question, "will reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions then reduce or help to control CO2's role as a GHG?" For many, answering "yes" to this question is confused with advocacy, even though the answer is obviously not advocacy but simply plain fact.<br /><br />I think Tamsin misses this problem and does not realize that a lot of people confuse "report" with "advocate."<br /><br />The problem becomes worse when the requirement to develop informed solutions is handed off to people with specific training lending itself to addressing mitigation. An economist is going to describe economically driven policy responses that are simply indistinguishable from advocacy. Suitable policy outcomes may indeed be constrained to so few choices that advocacy of a particular means is essentially all that's left to say. <br />dbostromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13885863615343906724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-41020095927062841472013-12-12T02:32:56.615-08:002013-12-12T02:32:56.615-08:00Hi Sou,
"The notion is as silly as that of a...Hi Sou,<br /><br />"The notion is as silly as that of a climate scientist not being able to discuss the implications of not reducing CO2 emissions. Or not being able to publicly express a personal opinion on whether an emissions trading scheme introduced now would have a greater or lesser impact (or cost) than geoengineering in 2080."<br /><br />These are not examples of policy choices, though:<br /><br />1) implications of not reducing CO2 emissions -> quantification of climate response and other earth system impacts to different SRES/RCP scenarios -> our area of expertise -> talk about as experts<br /><br />2) Or not being able to publicly express a personal opinion on whether an emissions trading scheme introduced now would have a greater or lesser impact (or cost) than geoengineering in 2080.<br />-> conflates two things - will separate:<br /><br />a) opinion on whether an emissions trading scheme introduced now would have a greater or lesser IMPACT than geoengineering in 2080<br />-> quantifying climate response to reduction in GHG forcing at time t1 and to geoengineered change in forcing at time t2 -> e.g. can we get to preindustrial climate with mirrors in space? probably no because regional distribution of heat different, likely to affect monsoons etc; also effects on sea level may be diffferent -> see papers by Pete Irvine etc -> our area of expertise, so we should talk about it<br /><br />b) ... COST ... -> not our area of expertise, assuming we are talking about scientists that study the earth system<br />Tamsin Edwardshttp://blogs.plos.org/modelsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-84971198479482730062013-12-12T00:53:02.014-08:002013-12-12T00:53:02.014-08:00@TheTracker
Why are you starting this up again af...@TheTracker<br /><br />Why are you starting this up again after 4 months? There's nothing here that hasn't been said before. Seems a bit unnecessary to re-start the fire.<br /><br />Also I think it's out of order for you to call Tamsin an "idiot". She most certainly is not. You say this explicitly in your comment at Dec 11 3.17pm, calling her a "useful idiot", and it's also implied simply by having a post about her under a blog title "Idiot Tracker" - it seems you think she'd one of the "idiots" that you are "tracking".<br /><br />I also think that comments on honesty and trust are a bit rich when done anonymously. Richard Bettshttp://geography.exeter.ac.uk/staff/index.php?web_id=Richard_Bettsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-73676778290160085192013-12-11T18:55:51.445-08:002013-12-11T18:55:51.445-08:00he's finitohe's finito<br /><br />MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-86650632324651311562013-12-11T18:55:31.896-08:002013-12-11T18:55:31.896-08:00Sou -
As an educator, I would say that there are ...Sou -<br /><br />As an educator, I would say that there are certain principles of pedagogy that apply. Certainly, there are always exceptions regarding what works best for any particular individual - but I think that your whole paradigm of a "polite" versus "tougher approach" is a bit off the mark. People tend to learn better when they are actively engaged in the learning process and learn better when they are open-minded and motivated. A more didactic and top-down approach is going to be less effective on average because it tends to lead the learner into a more passive role. In that sense, I have some sympathy for the rationale behind Tamsin's approach. Although I think that the frame of being "nice" versus being "tough" is a skewed view of the pedagogical questions (being "nice" versus being "tough" is largely secondary), there is something to be said for an approach that is directly oriented towards keeping people open-minded and engaged and active as learners. A problem, however, is that while being "nice" is probably somewhat related to facilitating open-minded learners, it is not the same thing by any means. <br /><br />And of course, as you say the problem on top of that is that most "skeptics" engaged in these debates have their minds made up (for reasons I would say don't have much to do with the science) and are governed largely in their learning process by confirmation bias. I think that anyone would be hard-pressed, howev99er, to make the case that "skeptics" convinced of their opinions are any more subject to confirmation bias that "realists" who are similarly confident in theirs. We see the same patterns play out across a variety of controversies, and the problems are more universal than what can be associated by particular views on particular issues. Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058404311263880189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-82855666562007939392013-12-11T16:49:48.874-08:002013-12-11T16:49:48.874-08:00The 'tone' makes no difference to the hard...The 'tone' makes no difference to the hard-core deniers. The difference comes when the reader is new to the topic and has no firm opinion. There are various studies about this IIRC.<br /><br />For a non-scientific take, FWIW, just my own experience - just what impact "tone" has, IMO, depends on the reader. A polite approach may be appealing to someone who prefers "nice". Who gets easily upset by frankness not softened by (mealy-mouthed) words. Whose ego may be more fragile. In a "polite" discussion they are not so fearful about joining in and asking questions. So to that extent it may work with some people but could be quite confusing to others. Outsiders have to read through two layers. They have to read through the polite layer (you are of value solely because you are human) to get to the substance of the discussion.<br /><br />An stronger personality wouldn't be put off by a tougher approach like that of Michael Mann. In fact they are probably more persuaded by a vigorous discussion than by one in which everyone is talking past each other in an effort to be "nice" and not offend. The substance is laid bare without having to work through the veneer of politeness.<br /><br />(I can personally vouch for the fact that some hard-core deniers suffer such severe confirmation bias and have such weird egos that they will take almost any statement as a personal affront, no matter how politely expressed - even if they haven't been part of the discussion at all.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-32800832627814540562013-12-11T15:17:48.899-08:002013-12-11T15:17:48.899-08:00I don't know where the other comment went, Jon...I don't know where the other comment went, Jon, sorry. <br /><br />"I would argue that while some "skeptics" might be less vitriolic toward here than, say, Michael Mann because she is less overt about her non-activist form of activism - there is precious little evidence to show any substantive differential impact."<br /><br />Yes indeed. There is no small degree of hubris in the belief that you and you alone have "cracked the code" allowing you to defuse partisan hostility. Most often, partisan hostility is not the result of a misunderstanding or trivial grievance. The comforting reception Edwards describes is more likely the vitriolic ideologues lowering their voices temporarily in welcoming a useful idiot.TheTrackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10011829472333355911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-84029738701540452252013-12-11T12:01:37.076-08:002013-12-11T12:01:37.076-08:00hmmm.
Did my previous comment get lost? If so, ...hmmm. <br /><br />Did my previous comment get lost? If so, please delete either that one or this one...<br /><br /><i>"So what is she claiming? Really, only that climate skeptics tolerate her. They don't verbally abuse her. "</i><br /><br />Even that isn't true, actually, If you look at the comments on her blog posts, you will find vitriolic comments directed at her as well as many others (I reserve the term "abuse" for actions that have greater real-world impact than comments on blog posts).<br /><br />Tamsin is quite convinced that her approach is effective. Nonetheless, I would argue that while some "skeptics" might be less vitriolic toward here than, say, Michael Mann because she is less overt about her non-activist form of activism - there is precious little evidence to show any substantive differential impact. For example, which "skeptics" have changed their views on iota because of her approach? How has her approach altered the nature of the climate wars? Policy development? Has it lessened the overall vitriol?<br /><br />As a scientist, Tamsin should be basing her conclusions on a careful study of the variables that help to show a cause-and-effect relationship. So what is the effect she is measuring and how does she validate a causal relationship?Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058404311263880189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-72597989551136300032013-12-11T02:11:07.459-08:002013-12-11T02:11:07.459-08:00"Crucially, they say this even though my scie..."Crucially, they say this even though my scientific views are absolutely mainstream."<br /><br />The reason they say this, is because they don't care about the science one yota. All they care about is the communication of what that science means to society. And this is where Tamsin contributes nothing to the debate and therefore is not "dangerous".<br /><br />Funniest thing is those that are so much insisting that they only trust climate scientists who do not promote policy are usually not very hesitant to discuss or promote various policies themselves. Mostly "do nothing!" of course...<br /><br />MarcoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-4115766085155041222013-12-10T22:00:06.045-08:002013-12-10T22:00:06.045-08:00I absolutely agree.
Scientists are citizens, part...I absolutely agree.<br /><br />Scientists are citizens, part of our democratic society. To exclude their voices from the public discourse is flagrantly stupid. Democracy is about harnessing the collective wisdom of the people, not suppressing it. To your examples I would add -- what about the artists? The writers? The philosophers? The teachers? The public servants? Is there anyone in the public sphere that cannot in some context desire it appear impartial? Are we going to silence anyone who knows anything?<br /><br />TheTrackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10011829472333355911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-55051972297442216242013-12-10T21:45:19.190-08:002013-12-10T21:45:19.190-08:00As usual you hit the nail on the head, IdiotTracke...As usual you hit the nail on the head, IdiotTracker.<br /><br />The other irony that I picked up on was that Tamsin was doing in her article, what she said scientists must not do. She was advocating policy! The policy being that no scientist should comment on policy. <br /><br />That policy if translated beyond climate science becomes preposterous. Imagine if it were applied to fields such as the medical science, arts, sport or education. <br /><br />Take a person who is an academic studying adult learning or childhood education. Imagine if they were not allowed to comment on education policy! <br /><br />Or a medical researcher studying measles or polio not being permitted to comment on whether childhood vaccination programs are beneficial.<br /><br />The notion is as silly as that of a climate scientist not being able to discuss the implications of not reducing CO2 emissions. Or not being able to publicly express a personal opinion on whether an emissions trading scheme introduced now would have a greater or lesser impact (or cost) than geoengineering in 2080.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-19034588107559380562013-12-10T14:45:50.701-08:002013-12-10T14:45:50.701-08:00Ah, good eye. Fixed.Ah, good eye. Fixed.TheTrackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10011829472333355911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-29717536120079952752013-12-10T14:02:59.384-08:002013-12-10T14:02:59.384-08:00JONAS SalkJONAS SalkJonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18246316232020910459noreply@blogger.com