2010-12-17 01:53:50Skeptical Science Attack
Bob Guercio
Robert Guercio
robertguercio@optonline...
24.187.91.250

Folks,

For what it's worth or better not worth, have a look at this website. 

Nonsense

Bob 

2010-12-17 03:50:13I Smell Rebuttal Number 105...
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
198.135.70.160

Just an exercise in argument by assertion "John Cook is wrong on ___________ because I said so."

 

MOTL = Mistaken On Things Logical

2010-12-17 05:37:33
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.80
It'd be worse if no one considered this site worth a rebuttal. Go ahead!  :)
2010-12-17 09:08:47Lubos' rebuttals
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.210.74
I've actually corresponded with Lubos after his rebuttal first came out. I thought about responding to them but well, I just dont have the time and lets face it, his criticisms are pretty feeble. It would devolve into me rebutting his rebuttals, Lubos rebutting my rebuttals of his rebuttals, etc. A somewhat pointless exercise. Sometimes he agrees with me but just scratches around for something to criticize. I think the main value of his document to skeptics is in online discussions when someone mentions SkS, they can respond, "ha, that site has already been debunked, here's a document that proves it". In those cases, one just needs to return the discussion back to the science.
2010-12-18 17:25:12Musing on skeptic reactions to SkS
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.210.74
Just had a thought. Generally, I get the sense of an unwillingness from skeptic websites to engage with SkS, out of fear of sending traffic our way. Lobos Motl's rebuttal is the exception, not the rule and even he concedes he was reluctant to do so. Anthony Watts seemed to avoid mentioning SkS at all until late this year and even then, he studiously refuses to link to SkS. Steve Goddard does regularly have a go but I think he's just trying to link bait us for traffic. And I've not seen any skeptic response to the Guide to Skepticism - not a whisper. Frankly, I'm surprised - i expected a backlash, not tumbleweeds - but this may be a reflection of the "don't mention SkS" strategy, out of fear of sending us traffic. Just a theory with no real evidence to back it up. :-)
2010-12-18 22:08:41
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
58.165.10.171

Interesting

 

Motl's piece is rather turgid English - language differences and all that - but is this the best SPPI can muster? It really seems to reflect the fact that they will use anything even vaguely supportive. And Monckton is linked to this crowd? The Denialosphere is filled with dross. But SPPI are using it! Is there an opening here?

""don't mention SkS" strategy, out of fear of sending us traffic. Just a theory with no real evidence to back it up"

So how do we 'force them' to mention it. More of that good old fashioned 'in your face' stuff. This is a hard fight. But some parts of it can be fun!

2010-12-19 07:53:10In your face stuff
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.210.74
I used to do 'in your face' stuff, to directly engage, provoke a reaction, generate some controversy and because, well, it's fun. But I do less and less direct engagement and take more of a long term view now. What's our goal and strategy? It should be primarily education, not controversy. Who's our target audience? It's the large majority of undecideds, not the hard core skeptics. The end prize is action on climate change. It's still an unsure road how to get to that point but with every action, I'm trying to incrementally move in that direction.
2010-12-19 08:14:06
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.112.208

This is the same kind of crap that seems to have gotten Motl fired from Harvard as a junior string theorist (well, not exactly the same: He was nastier as a string theorist).

If Motl's muddle gets tossed in our face, the best approach is to say, "Pick ONE particular argument that you think is a good one, and let's discuss it." Then you can draw on (what else) SkS, because I didn't see any points he mentioned that actually go beyond what was already answered in the SkS articles. (Or if there is something, we should fix it!) 

 

2010-12-19 09:46:56
Bob Guercio
Robert Guercio
robertguercio@optonline...
24.187.93.148

I'm not for the "in your face stuff" at all. 

That tactic is necessary when you don't have your "stuff" together.  We do!

Let's let the deniers make fools out of themselves with "in your face stuff"

 

Bob

2010-12-21 06:12:13Guide
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.107
Goddard and Watts haven't even mentioned the Guide, have they?  I agree with John, that's rather surprising.  It may very well be that they're trying not to draw attention to it, because frankly it's a very useful and convincing guide.  I doubt they could come up with any criticisms that would pass muster at even their own low standards, so perhaps they are just hoping it flies under the radar.
2010-12-21 09:19:08
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.120.73
So is there anything we can do to promote it further?
2010-12-24 05:25:12
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
92.24.246.74

dana, I seriously doubt that. Watts lets some absolute shit onto his site that a first year undergrad would be embarrassed to even write down.

 

I expect they'll have a stab at the guide as soon as they can write something that might convince the ignorant layperson. Or they're waiting for someone to hand it to some teacher and then they'll write a 'LOOK, THEY'RE BRAINWASHING THE CHILDREN' post and intentionally misunderstand a few points in the guide. They're outstanding at rhetoric and as we saw in 1933 Germany, that can overwhelm morality and logic quite easily...

2010-12-26 10:14:06WUWT response to SkS
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.206.13

I get the general sense from WUWT that skeptics don't like to mention SkS except in a "that rubbish site" sense, lest it draw attention or links to our site. When Anthony Watts did write a post, getting all huffy about John Bruno's use of the word denialists (yep, that's the best criticism he could come up with), it was all under the narrative "John Cook's fall from grace". And he manages to quote SkS and post screenshots without a single link to SkS - he even gets around it by quoting another website quoting SkS!

When someone else posted a WUWT guest post featuring a criticism of SkS, he committed the faux pas of linking to our site. There were comments from WUWT regulars saying "why even mention that site SkS?!" So I get the impression there's a general sentiment that SkS is either beneath their dignity to comment on or they wish to avoid drawing attention to us or both. Surely the same sentiment would apply to the Guide.

I think the Guide would need to get distributed widely enough for it to pose enough threat before they feel compelled to comment on it. 

2010-12-26 21:24:21Post/Comment about the Guide on ClimateProgress?
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.182.225

Are their already any plans to highlight the Guide at ClimateProgress? That sure would give it some exposure (or so I think). If nothing specific is currently being planned, we could use the weekend open thread to at least post a comment about (or two) about it.

Cheers
Baerbel

2010-12-27 00:08:04
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.50.2
What we need is a marketing campaign.
2010-12-27 08:30:41Climate progress
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.206.13
I have been talking to Joe about the Guide. He asked for JPEGs of each human fingerprint. Then over Christmas, he asked if he could repost some recent SkS posts while he was on holiday so I put in a reminder about the Guide.
2010-12-28 01:47:56Post on Climate Progress
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.149.99

The post about the Guide and the fingerprints just went up on ClimateProgress.

Cheers
Baerbel

 

2010-12-28 02:54:44
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.124.204

Baerbel,

Has your group done a translation of the Guide into German yet?

I'm wondering if the denialist movement is less integrated in Germany, and it might be easier to get the Guide commented on/against in that arena.

2010-12-28 03:33:29German translation in the work
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.149.99

Hi Neal,

we are done with the basic translating but are having the results proofread at the moment. As two people were involved with translating the guide's pages we might still need to do some tweaking to ensure that we are consistent with how we translated certain expressions.

We also haven't yet come up with a catchy German title for the guide as a word-by-word translation doesn't work too well.

My "co-translator" works at the Klimahaus in Bremerhaven and plans to distribute it there. I already tried to get in touch with our regional newspaper's science department but haven't heard back from them yet. I'll prod them again soon as I think that they should be interested in both the guide and SkS on the whole (their reporting on climate change is pretty good and doesn't fall prey to false-balance as is the case in U.S.).

Cheers
Baerbel

2010-12-28 08:18:49Climate Progress and translations
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.206.13
Nice to wake up to seeing the Guide on CP.

re translations, the Italian translation has been done and I've already put all the text into the guide (with all the graphics, I thought it would take much longer but I managed to get through it in about 80 minutes). Riccardo has just a few corrections to the final version before I publish it online.

2011-01-10 17:31:24Brain storm
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

John you say  "And I've not seen any skeptic response to the Guide to Skepticism - not a whisper. Frankly, I'm surprised - i expected a backlash, not tumbleweeds - but this may be a reflection of the "don't mention SkS" strategy, out of fear of sending us traffic. Just a theory with no real evidence to back it up. :-)"

I concur.  Incredibly odd-- I thought they would attack you. They are no doubt up to something, that or you really scared the sh1t out of them and they are wishing it away.  It is sad that WUWT et al. are more concerned about "traffic" and sending people here than they are about the science and getting to the truth.  Really immature and narcissistic IMHO.

I'm hoping that the guide will slowly, but surely, get more attention-- sometimes these things take time. 

Is there any chance you could use one or more of your media contacts to do a piece on the Guide?  And am half serious when I say this, maybe New Scientists, Nature of Science would consider allowing an editorial on it-- you know, this is how to do citizenship science (OK, you are a real scientist by training, but I hope you know what I mean).  Maybe Revkin would do something, or the reporter who recently wrote the excellent article on sea level rise for the NYT?

Just brain storming here.....

 

 

 

 

2011-01-10 20:06:41What I should've done
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.100.112
I'm kicking myself that there were a few marketing things I could've done better - I just didn't give it enough thought at the time. But hindsight is always 20:20 - better late than never. One idea is the small but growing list of organizations using the guide or linking to it. Plus Scott Mandia's college is planning to release a press release on how their students played a part in the Guide. So when they issue the press release, I'll blog about it. Then I thought I might see if I can post an article in the UK Guardian, shaping a narrative about the Guide, the organizations using it and giving some highlights from the Guide.

I wonder if its possible to get something published in the Huffington Post. I'll also try Treehugger who have huge traffic. So I'll use the press release as a starting point. If I can get in Guardian and a few other big sites, it'll be hard for the skeptics to ignore.

When the "Climate Change Denial" book is released in April, I'm going to spend a lot more time planning the marketing beforehand. This time, do it right!

2011-01-11 00:35:58
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.62.235

Marketing is very important. It doesn't, ultimately, matter how good your product is if no one knows about it.

However, there's no need to become discouraged: It's not like there's lots of competition out there. There's plenty of time for the Guide to turn into an "overnight success".

Maybe you can approach some journalists directly, to see if they can discuss or critique the guide: You don't need to wait for a new "event".

2011-01-11 05:43:37
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.172.70

Once we have the German version available (still proofreading it) I'll get in touch with some hopefully interested groups in Germany (some NGOs I'm involved with locally should be interested for example). I heard back from our regional newspaper's science department and they sounded at least somewhat interested, so I'll send it to them as well. And - believe it or not - our local electricity-provider might be interested also! They understand the issue and do quite a lot already when it comes to renewable energy (wind, solar, biomass).

Cheers
Baerbel

2011-01-11 09:41:53SS booklet
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi John,

 

Sorry.  I did not mean to suggest that you did anything wrong-- just floating some ideas b/c people seemed frustrated that it has not received more attention.

 

 Anyway, your plan of attack sounds good to me.

2011-01-11 09:44:45No worries
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.100.112
I didn't take any comments as criticism. It was more my own reflections on how I could've done it better. It's no big deal. It's still been downloaded 50,000 times which is not too shabby for an online document. But hopefully we can take it further still.
2011-01-11 10:32:09SS booklet
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi John,

 

Good. Just wanted to make sure :)  Wow, that is awesome about all the downloads!

I am promoting it online here whenever I get a chance.

 

 

2011-01-12 05:19:37
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

 

With regards to WUWT's response to the Skeptic's Guide...  This is an overused quote but may be apt.  "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."  - Ghandi

Maybe Motl's response is a sign they are moving into the "then they fight you" phase.

It's all a good sign that there is an impact being made by the collective efforts being made at SkS. 

2011-01-17 03:33:31Plugging SkS
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.68.19

When I post on a comment thread to an article on climate change. I consisitently quote from and proved direct links to rebuttals posted on SkS. 

Here's an example:

“Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.”

Source: What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us? Advanced version by James Wright, Skeptical Science, Dec 24, 2010

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm

In addition to posting specific rebuttals, I also post a generic reference:

All of the anti-AGW, pseudo science posted on this comment thread is thoroughly rebutted on the Skeptical Science website. To access it, go to: http://www.skepticalscience.com

2011-01-17 04:34:51
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.115.143

Badgersouth,

Alternative wording, that some people might find more inviting:

"If you find the anti-AGW arguments plausible, you owe it to yourself to check them in the context of a broader understanding of the evidence that has been built up over the last 100 years of scientific study of this question. You can find discussions of the different arguments at the Skeptical Science website, at: http://www.skepticalscience.com".

 

2011-01-17 08:08:30NealJKing
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.68.19

Thanks for offering a "kinder, gentler" version of my generic plug. I'll use it when and where appropriate.