2011-12-21 16:06:48At last! A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
Tom Smerling

avi@smerling...
216.164.57.97

The draft post is here:   "At last!   A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate".    This is a cross post, with a number of minor changes, from ClimateBites.

2011-12-21 16:44:43
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.252

Looks good Tom.  I'd add a few links, like to our 'no consensus' rebuttal.  I can add the links if you don't object.

I don't know about listing Huntsman amongst the flip-floppers.  He retracted his temporary climate denial really quickly, and maybe was misinterpreted to begin with.

2011-12-21 23:29:41
Kevin C

cowtan@ysbl.york.ac...
144.32.72.165

Very nice.

There's an argument to be made that AGW denial loses credibility because its adherents almost all share a common ideology, just as evolution deniers almost all share a common belief system. However it needs to be done with care, in particular:

- To make the argument, it is also necessary to show that AGW is not itself driven by ideology, by showing that AGW proponents come from across the political spectrum. This would be aided by a list of conservative (and especially libertarian) AGW proponents, including climate scientists if possible.

- The comparison with evolution denial is probably not something which you would put in a general piece. It's a helpful argument to an audience who consider evolution denial to be ridiculous, but for a mixed audience is likely to push creationists towards agw denial.

2011-12-22 16:39:46Looks good, Tom
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.157.177
Note many of the links are broken. I'd also add blockquote indenting to the excerpt.
2011-12-22 21:22:13
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
2.97.60.80

I think that the phrasing of the title is very much splitting people into 'us' and 'them'. Rephrasing would be better IMO.

e.g. just 'A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate' doesn't have the same divisional implications.

2011-12-22 21:26:34nice catch.
Tom Smerling

avi@smerling...
216.164.57.97

Mark -- Excellent point!   in fact, the original post did not have the "At last!", but I added it for SkS!       However you are  right, it's is patronizing and contradicts my message.    Nice catch -- will fix immediately.

2011-12-22 21:58:47fixes made
Tom Smerling

avi@smerling...
216.164.57.97

-- I fixed the broken links (all but one were apparently broken during pasting).

-- I deleted the partronizing phrase "At last!"

and made a few other tweaks/updates.

Dana -- as you suggest, I think you can insert the SkS links better than I, because you know where things are.

2011-12-22 23:11:10
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
2.97.60.80

Perhaps change any other similar comments: e.g. 'how refreshing!' at the beginning. It might be cathartic to add these comments, but it probably doesn't help get people to ignore their gut political reactions and consider real world evidence.

2011-12-23 00:23:00
Tom Smerling

avi@smerling...
216.164.57.97

Thanks again, Mark.   "Refreshing" is gone.   I totally agree in principle -- if not always in practice! -- about avoiding cathartic but counterproductive comments, particularly when speaking to conservatives.

Dana    Re: Huntsman.   I checked the most recent statements I could find (from his spokesperson).    He didn't walk it all the way back; he's still saying that "the jury is out" and nothing can be done until the scientific controversy is resolved (even though, in the same breath, he acknowledges that most scientists are in agreement).     Bottom line, his statements are such a pile of contradictory gobblydegook, as he twists and turns to please everybody on this, its hard to understand what he is even saying, much less what he actually believes.   

I'd call it, at most, a half-way walkback, so I'm comfortable leaving him in the "recantist" camp.    BTW, I couldn't find any claim that he was misquoted or quoted out of context at Heritage, so I assume he wants the quotes to stand, because they help him with the right!

Seems like he just decided that the ol' "honesty, integrity and political courage" persona wasn't getting him any traction, so why not try some pandering.

2011-12-23 04:01:03dana
Tom Smerling

avi@smerling...
216.164.57.97

Dana -- after friday night, I will likely be "incommunicado" until Monday.    In terms of process, what more should I do between now and then to "wrap this up?"

2011-12-23 04:15:53
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

This will probably be published sometime next week Tom.  I haven't had a chance to take another look at it - if you're happy with it, unless more comments come in, there's nothing else you need to do.

2011-12-23 07:27:54
Tom Smerling

avi@smerling...
216.164.57.97

OK thanks.   I'm OK as is.    I may tweak a bit more, especially with an eye to Marc's suggestions above, but you don't have to wait for me.   Feel free to add links.

P.S.   Check out my recent post (Glenn strikes gold) on the forum topic on this in "General Chat"   :)