Comments on: Suffer the Grandchildren?

By: Deech56

Deech56 — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:05:22 +0000

So while everyone is busy on their fainting couches (and GaryM posts a typical winger anto-Obama screed), I would ask, what has been more harmful to our chances for a low-carbon economy: angry posts by a semi-anonymous commenter, or the FOI spamming of UEA followed by the hacking of their e-mail server?
I say the latter, yet the coordinator of the FOI requests has legions of ready defenders.
It’s like placing the blame on the Iraq war on the dirty f___ hippie bloggers who responded to the lies with outrage. Would politeness have worked?

By: GaryM

GaryM — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:11:58 +0000

After all the dissing of Sarah Palin, I think it is only fair that I be allowed to post this AP article about Obama:

AP DETROIT – Don’t say President Barack Obama isn’t dutiful and law-abiding.
When Obama toured a General Motors assembly plant Friday, he was invited to test drive a battery-powered Chevrolet Volt inside the cavernous facility.
He looked beseechingly to his top aides, including press secretary Robert Gibbs, all of whom shook their heads. Obama appealed to the chief of his Secret Service detail, who threw up his hands in resignation.
The smiling president got in, buckled his seat belt and proceeded to drive – drum roll, please — 10 feet, and probably not above 2 mph, as news cameras clicked away.
“I hope it has an air bag,” Gibbs said.
Obama, who almost never gets to drive, pronounced the ride “pretty smooth.”

Do we have the first Rainman president. “I’m a very good driver.”

By: laursaurus

laursaurus — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:06:31 +0000

That’s a big no for me, Gary.
Wasn’t Palin’s youngest still an infant when she was selected for VP candidate? Heck I only have 3 kids and am just starting the process of going back to work. I imagine she has hired help for all the non-paycheck duties a wife and mother are responsible for. But still, to accomplish all she has takes extraordinary ability. One child with special needs qualifies you for public assistance. The overwhelming pressure put on her from the baseless allegations and personal attacks (to use the sympathy-evoking language of the UEA climate scientists) were too much for anyone in that position to handle. I agree with Gary that she was qualified to be a vice president. Under the circumstances, though, maybe not at this stage of her life. Months ago, I could picture her doing a very effective job as head of the Republican Party. I’m quite pleased she is being considered for that position.
I’m a huge fan of the Skeptoid podcast. Last summer, there was an episode pointing a skeptical eye on the “Sarah Palin is stupid” meme. In an apolitical, common-sense manner they reviewed facts.
Ok, well I’ve pretty much revealed my political persuasion. I’ve also experienced feeling discredited by statements such as, “although I don’t care for Laura’s political bias, I have to agree on X, Y, Z” in a different forum, the Skeptalk email discussion list. If political bias is your issue, go ahead and describe them as they pertain to you without needing to draw a person you’re agreeing with down into the mud. The CAGW propaganda

By: Tom Fuller

Tom Fuller — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:45:24 +0000

GaryM, I cannot answer your question in #74 because I honestly do not know the details of Palin’s life.

However, I can tell you that my beef with her is not the fact that she is conservative. Although I am a progressive liberal democrat, there are many conservatives I deeply respect.

My dislike of Sarah Palin stems from what I perceive to be insincerity and shameless opportunism. I actually think she would cheerfully be a Democrat if it served her purposes, and be pretty Green about it, too.

By: Keith Kloor

Keith Kloor — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:19:31 +0000

GaryM,

I'm not aware that I've been slagging off on conservatives in general. Last thing I'll say about her: if she were a liberal, she'd have been mocked viciously by conservatives, you do know that?

Also, philosophy (in terms of ideology) informs policy, which then gets tossed in the sausage grinder (politics) so I can see how this all gets bundled together during discussions like this.

By: GaryM

GaryM — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:16:17 +0000

Keith,
My point, by the way, wasn’t about Palin at all. It was about the reflexive slams against conservatives that pop up in here all the time. Liberal Tourettes. Palin is a politician; criticize her all you want, or any other conservative for that matter. Lord knows I criticize more than a few liberals.

But there is a difference between arguing against policy and philosophy, and the gratuitous ad hominems routinely directed at conservatives here. At least put some substance into the remarks and don’t just repeat what has been written in the NY Times and Washington Post ad nauseum.

I’ll keep saying it in hopes it will eventually sink in. The impact liberal/moderate skeptics are having that so enrages the Real Climate type activists is in the political arena. And virtually your only allies in that regard are going to be conservatives. Not Democrats, not Republicans, conservatives.

So you might want to rethink the whole “conservatives are idiots,” or “anti-science,” or “in the pay of big oil” memes. Hasn’t your being submitted to those exact same tactics given you even the slightest hesitation in repeating the same insults reflexively whenever you mention a conservative?

Do you really think this debate is about the science at its core? I mean, do you really think that Gavin Smith and James Hansen don’t know the real extent of the uncertainty of the science? Do they really need Judith Curry or Steve McIntyre at this point to teach them about all the various issues they and others have raised about climate science (with some of which you seem to agree)?

I may question their politics, or their bias, but I have no doubts about their intelligence. If you all keep trying to leave political motivation out of your analysis, you will never understand them. And if you keep slamming your allies in this debate, you will minimize your impact in the real world.

By the way, no one answered my question at the end of my post (174). May I take that as a no? No former governors or mayors or the equivalent here?

By: GaryM

GaryM — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:42:14 +0000

Keith,
No, Palin’s experience had nothing to do with McCain picking her for VP. Although less experience and she would not have been picked I believe. I will leave for later what executive experience our current president had (hint- none at all, and we are paying for it now). I don’t know that I would have wanted to vote for her for president as it was too soon. Just as I think it was too soon for Obama (his politics aside). But I had no problem with her being the VP candidate.

McCain picked her because the real conservatives in the Republican Party cannot stand him politically. Campaign finance reform, illegal immigration amnesty. McCain is the type of liberal Republican who loves going on the Sunday news shows and dissing conservative policies and politicians. His poll numbers shot up when she was named, and gave her acceptance speech. The only reason for this was that the conservative base on the Republican Party finally had something to vote for.

The meme that she is some dim bulb is just not true. She performed well in the VP debate, but even better in the gubernatorial debates that were available online at the time.

Her deer in the headlights response to the blast furnace of a national election, with the demonizing of her noted above by Laurasaurus, was only exacerbated by the McCain staff. Is she a genius, no. Does one need to be one to be a successful vice president or ultimately president? Hell no.

I think those who try to see her as the next Dan Quayle seriously underestimate her. But time will tell. I know she scares the hell out of the White House. They don’t underestimate her at all. Look how fast they respond to her on issues like “death panels.” She wrote a post on Facebook and they jumped.

By: laursaurus

laursaurus — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:52:36 +0000

Clarification:
I didn’t intend to draw a direct comparison between Curry and Palin. My point is that Curry presents a politically incorrect threat to left wing political ideology. Feminist ideology is part and parcel of the leftist narrative. Historically, Feminists embrace successful women as role models, as long as she supports the prescribed political ideology. Now that JC is perceived as a threat to the consensus, will the feminist activists go after her the way they did to SP?
She may be able to fly under the radar. Or like Palin, it could backfire in some way. Does JC have a Facebook page yet? LOL
Perhaps the not quite convinced crowd could perceive her as a sympathetic figure or read the HSI? On that brutal RC thread, the conversation became focused on her take-down, rather than about the book. Considering how most of the crowd vowed to never read it, they had to find something else to talk about.

By: JimR

JimR — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:37:20 +0000

Dave H,
I find the absolute worst behaviour at “skeptic” blogs, and that bad behaviour at some “consensus” places blown completely out of proportion.

I won’t argue that there isn’t bad behavior on some “skeptic” blogs, personally I avoid such places. I would recommend Lucia’s Blackboard as a very nice place with good discussions. I also like Climate Audit, which is too technical for most people with only the occasional snarkiness. This may be difficult for you to believe from your current point of view, but Steve moderates out most name calling, piling on and off topic science discussions. I believe it was Judith Curry who said that the (don’t remember how she phrased it) most polite environments were the technical skeptic blogs and the Blackboard and CA are in this category. I am generally a lurker these days so I don’t feel the personal brunt of anything, but it comes down to what I choose to read. And there are unruly places across the blogosphere, but can you point me to an AGW blog that rises above the insults? I would have expected RC to be it, but they heavily moderate polite rebuttals (personally had it happen as have many others) yet allow the faithful freedom to make crude insults in their comments section. I’ve followed RC since it’s founding so this isn’t just a couple of examples where things got out of hand.

I have very little time for individuals that ignore a point-by-point rebuttal simply because they feel that they were personally attacked.

Well that’s the way life is. People who are insulted (or are allowed to be insulted by out of control blog commenters) generally aren’t going to bother giving up more time for point by point rebuttals. And I don’t think point by point rebuttals was Dr. Curry’s intention in the first place.

That aside, I am frustrated when the level of discourse drops to insults because it hands an easy moral victory to “the opposition”, so to speak.

Agreed! What do you say we all go for the moral high ground and see if the quality of the discussion doesn’t rise proportionately? And I honestly think some of the more abrasive characters have no problem giving up the moral high ground if they can score insult points and divert discussions they don’t want to happen anyway.

And again, I didn’t get the impression Judith Curry ever intended to point by point rebut everything thrown her way. From my vantage point everything but the kitchen sink was thrown her way including some just plain silly challenges that obviously seemed to divert and waste time.
I think the main problem is the format, and the tendency to disappear when challenged.

Curry said that her postings were more a type of “drive by” as she didn’t intend on taking on every challenge. If you haven’t already read some of the early Collide-a-scape posts on Curry and you will see her intentions are more in the area of acknowledging there are more uncertainties and issues that should be addressed and are currently ignored as opposed to championing every skeptic talking point as some expect her to do.
RE – the Wegman report-
If the allegations hold water, then absolutely yes, despite your loaded attempt to dismiss them as the allegations of a “minor blog”. And it is this massive double standard that is in evidence once again – material that supports the “skeptical” viewpoint is given a quick pass. Why is *nobody* on the “skeptical” side even slightly interested in the Wegman allegations? When did “skeptic” start to have such a narrow meaning?
Since this area is statistics the math stands or falls on it’s on regardless of attacks on the lead author’s character. The primary allegation I’ve seen is of plagiarism in some very basic text in the report on dendrochronology basics. Thinking people just aren’t going to dismiss valid points on such a trivial basis.

And for anyone to expect Curry to defend Wegman was pretty silly. She made a point and despite attacks on Wegman nothing diminished her point. Should she have allowed herself to be sidetracked defending Wegman? Of course not.

Curry is well known enough now that if she really wanted a meeting of minds on this, then she could make a genuine attempt to be that neutral territory – however, I fear she may have become too deeply associated with one “tribe” for this to succeed.

Yes, reinforcing my point to Keith that instead of looking for someone on the skeptic side to attempt the same bridge building first we need to see how the AGW tribe treats the bridge builder. Curry is well known as a long time scientist and hair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology…. yet I saw her challenged on the most trivial scientific points as if she were Bubba the skeptic. All the while I think most missed her message too upset she gave any credibility to those outside the AGW tribe that she was so quickly banished from.

By: Keith Kloor

Keith Kloor — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:04:56 +0000

GaryM,

I don't get your point. Not that I want to get off on a Sarah Palin track. But I'm curious: do you think McCain chose her for the accomplishments you listed?