2011-12-29 08:58:34Stephen Schneider video
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I've created a post for that Stephen Schneider video.  I will let folks discuss the merits of reposting it.  I've also sent an email to Stephen Thompson the videos producer for permission to repost.

2011-12-29 09:04:09
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Oh, I shouldn't neglect the fact that it was Tom Curtis who brought this here.  Maybe it should be posted under his name.

2011-12-29 09:05:50
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.135.123

I vote NO, in its current form. Get rid of those stupid ads first.

2011-12-29 09:22:00
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Having worked with artists before (and having an art background myself) I would guess that would mean not posting this.  If others have the same response I will certainly make the request but my guess would be that Thompson would likely be unwilling to make alterations just for us.

2011-12-29 09:34:23
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

For starters, links to SkS rebuttals like “CO2 is a plant food” could be worked into post, if people are still worried. Could be an opportunity to reference all the myths mentioned in video to relevant SkS rebuttals.

2011-12-29 09:36:32
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I would have to suggest that SkS itself breaks many of those cardinal rules laid out in the Debunking Handbook (acknowledged by JC).  This site's key tool makes use of repeating all the climate myths before debunking them, which is a clear no-no.  I think it's going to take a while to get the debunking rules that John and Stephen lay out to propogate out and bear fruit.  Eventually SkS should be reformating the layout of the site.  

I would be more in favor of letting Thompson's video play as it is but make sure he gets a copy of the handbook and point out the places where he might do better in future work.  I'm sure we're going to see a lot more from this guy.  We should do what we can to promote his talents.

2011-12-29 09:37:31
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I could definitely add links to SkS articles in the post.  I'll work on that now.

2011-12-29 09:47:00
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.135.123

I think you may be guilty of projecting Rob. I can watch that video and not be fooled by the denier garbage, but that's on account of my research and background knowledge. No doubt the same for you. But what about uninformed viewers? You're sending a conflicting message that no amount of linked rebuttals can undo. 

What the hell is the point of inserting that garbage into the video anyway? 

2011-12-29 09:52:12
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I think as long as we link to the relevant SkS rebuttals in the associated blog post, it should be okay.  Maybe put them before the video to make sure people are aware that these myths are coming in the video and we've rebutted them.  I think that's in the debunking handbook - if you're going to repeat a myth, make it clear ahead of time that it's a myth.

I can understand why they put the myths in the video - as examples of the deception Schneider was talking about.

2011-12-29 09:59:38
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

It's all of 20 seconds of a 12 minute video.  And it built into the context of a very long discussion on the distortions of science.  I agree, I think it would be better if it were chopped up more and, again, I can make that request.  But honestly I don't think it's that dissimilar from SkS having all the denier points listed on the left side of every page on this site.

Stephen Schneider is making an extremely important point about the distortion of science that is happening today.  I believe Thompson is trying to reinforce that point.

I don't think many people are going to watch the video and walk away going, "Damn, now I'm really convinced AGW is a hoax" just because that CO2isGreen ad is in there.

2011-12-29 10:01:35
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I'll take Dana's suggestion and move the SkS debunk links to before the vid.

2011-12-29 10:01:52
Andy S

skucea@telus...
173.183.12.188

I'm not sure about the objection to the embedded denier ads. Perhaps we can add some commentary and links to specific SkS debunkings that refer to the denier points raised. It would have been better to immediately rebut the denialist talking points but that wouldn't be possible using only clips of Schneider's voice.

People who are doubtful about climate change are already bombarded by denialist talking points in the media. Interspersing clips of these ads among long clips of Schneider talking reasonably and sincerely simply shows how unreasonable and insincere the denier points are. Schneider does actually mention that these arguments are incoherent, they are "Blabbe" and the contrast with the pro-smoking ads condemns them.

I doubt very much that the filmmaker will allow us to edit it. He sweated over this and just cutting bits out would disrupt the soundtrack as well.

It's Bill McKibben by the way.

So, it's a "yes" from me if we add some links to SkS rebuttals. The main issues are "CO2 is plant food" "The debate isn't over" and "It's not bad". A link to any of Naomi Oreskes' stuff on tobacco/oil"merchants of Doubt" lobbying might be useful also.

[Added: I see many of the points I made were already made by others while I was typing and making tea]

2011-12-29 10:06:22
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Thanks for the McKibben catch, Andy!  Will add those additional SkS links.

2011-12-29 10:10:32
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Updates made.

2011-12-29 10:50:55
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
76.28.5.93

I think this shoudl be posted, but honestly someone should drop a comment to Climate One asking if they themselves feel it needs revision.  As I said on the other thread, I think it could be handled as easily as slipping the ad into fast-forward, to poke fun at how it very reasonably and methodically drones on about plant food.

But I say post this.  Looks good.

2011-12-29 10:56:19
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I just got an email back from Stephen Thomson giving permission.  I casually mentioned the Debunking Handbook and his extensive use of repeating the denier myths.  I didn't ask for him to re-edit anything for us.

2011-12-29 10:58:51
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Just took note that it's "Thomson" not "Thompson."

2011-12-29 12:51:07
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.150.35

I'll just re-iterate that this sort of "communication", where we endorse a video that sends such obviously conflicting messages, illustrates a fundamental failure to understand why the Joe and Jane Average are so confused on climate change. It is in direct contravention of the useful guidelines laid down in the Debunking Handbook too.

Yeah, we'll perhaps get informed readers commenting what a great video it was, because they only focus on what Steve Schneider has to say - a form of cognitive bias - the same cognitive bias I think other authors here are using to filter this video into their 'mental model.' But our target audience, the ones that really matter, will just be confused.

No amount of debunking upfront will unstickify the video because the myths are repeated right througout the video. They are interwoven into the fabric of the video itself. Ask yourself: What would an uninformed person take away from this video? Do you think they might find Steve Schneider and the repeated myths of equal merit? I suspect they will.

Anyway, said my piece. I think you are guilty of repeating mistakes we should be learning from, not endorsing.

2011-12-29 13:09:40I still think it is a mistake to repost this video
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.149.82

The real issue is the CO2 is plant food add which is a slick add with its own voice over.  It does not directly relate to anything Schneider was saying immediately before or after it.  Because it has its own voice over, it could be excised from the video without interrupting the sound track.  Never-the-less it is dubious that we will recieve permission to do so, and or to more extensively re-edit. 

Rob Honeycutt mentions the SkS site key as comparable.  It is not, and for exactly the reason he wants to run the video rather than simply printing a transcript of Schneider's speach.  The reason is that videos have great impact.  They can persuade simply by clarity of presentation.

Indeed, this is another aspect of what John Cook calls the backfire effect.  People believe what they remember well, and by engaging our two primary senses in a carefully crafted way, videos make messages memorable and hence likely to be believed even after we forget the reasons for our belief.

Finally, as I object to posting the video, it would be entirely inappropriate to include me as an author of the post.

2011-12-29 13:11:46
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.149.82

I'm looking for my thumbs down button, and can't find it.

2011-12-29 15:21:04
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

I’ve watched the video again because I thought maybe I hadn’t seen what others are seeing – but no, it put the denier’s myths into context and dealt with them comprehensively.

I then rang someone I sent the video to who I consider to be a moderate in the debate and his exact words were “It was a bloody good video”, and he didn’t even have the rebuttals to read.

We are bombarded with this denialist garbage constantly and we now have a video that contextualises them.

It’s a shame we are arguing over what Stephen Schneider fought so hard for – remember he got into a TV studio full of deniers and took their myths head on.

I will not be putting a thumb up or down but hope plenty of people get to see the video.  

2011-12-29 16:12:17
Andy S

skucea@telus...
173.183.12.188
What strikes me about this discussion is that those among us who are against publishing the video feel more strongly against it than the intensity that I, at least, feel in favour of it. So, I would be happy to see us pass on this opportunity rather than risk making a mistake, and a mistake made in the face of the strong opinions of some respected contributors. It's not as if we are short of material.
2011-12-29 18:02:17
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
139.168.123.225

For what its worth, and partly mirroring Andy's comment. I think it is worth publishing but that is not a strong view. This vid excapsulates things really well, and Schneider comes across really well. Clear & articulate but also a bit pissed off. I/m not sure what the purpose of the producer was, inserting the advertorials. And if contrast or juxtaposition was the point, I don't think it is done terribly well. Something went wrong in the editing suite.

However, with an intro from us, commenting on the ads, their dubious sources and so on and linking to the rebuttals, on balance I think it is worthwhile.If you prime your audience to 'look out for' the bad stuff, that innoculates them to a fair degree.

This video humanises a great climate scientist. I even have a suggested title 'Vale, Stephen Schneider'. That he is dead makes it harder for the black hats to attack it too hard.

On balance, listening to the various arguments here, I vote publish. It is too easy to get paralysed by a fear of mistakes. Sometimes it needs to be 'Full Speed Ahead, Damn the Torpedoes'

2011-12-30 03:14:58
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Maybe we need to get a call on this one from the referee (John C).

2011-12-30 03:34:16
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Yeah I'd suggest shooting John an email, Rob (he's very busy these days and won't see it otherwise).

2011-12-30 04:12:20
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Just sent John a note.  It'll be a few hours before he wakes up to get the email.

2011-12-30 08:14:32Post the video
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.223.98.11

It's not ideal that the plant food ad is there but the positives far outweigh the negatives and the ad is put into context. It's a wonderful video, amazingly put together by Stephen. I can't believe he spent a year working on it.

Note that Peter Sinclair's latest crock of the week on solar/cosmic rays starts by repeating the myth :-)

And yes, SkS does need a lot of work to follow its own Debunking Handbook advice.

2011-12-30 08:50:11
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Sounds good - we've got nothing on the schedule for tomorrow, so we can plan to post it then.

2011-12-30 09:05:00
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.205

I don't see much of a problem with the pro-CO2 ads, it is put in the right context and in the end it leaves the same impression as the pro-tobacco ads. I think it's there to make people think "look, they did it before".
Maybe I'm biased because I like too much they way Stephen Schneider speaks, but I think it's worth publishing it.

2011-12-30 09:46:22
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.201.71

I must say I'm disappointed that this video is going to be posted. The research pointed out by Stephan and John in their Debunking Handbook shows why this is the exactly the wrong way to present information to an uninformed audience.

For a bunch of people with a scientific background you seem to be taking a gut instinct-based approach to this. Isn't ignoring science what the fake-skeptics do? 

See:The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect

"To debunk a myth, you often have to mention it - otherwise, how will people know what you’re talking about? However, this makes people more familiar with the myth and hence more likely to accept it as true. Does this mean debunking a myth might actually reinforce it in people’s minds?

To test for this backfire effect, people were shown a flyer that debunked common myths about flu vaccines.1 Afterwards, they were asked to separate the myths from the facts. When asked immediately after reading the flyer, people successfully identified the myths. However, when queried 30 minutes after reading the flyer, some people actually scored worse after reading the flyer. The debunking reinforced the myths.

Hence the backfire effect is real. The driving force is the fact that familiarity increases the chances of accepting information as true. Immediately after reading the flyer, people remembered the details that debunked the myth and successfully identified the myths. As time passed, however, the memory of the details faded and all people remembered was the myth without the “tag” that identified it as false. This effect is particularly strong in older adults because their memories are more vulnerable to forgetting of details......

When seeking to counter misinformation, the best approach is to focus on the facts you wish to communicate.

Your debunking should begin with emphasis on the facts, not the myth. Your goal is to increase people’s familiarity with the facts."

So based on the research highlighted by the debunking handbook. The Steve Schneider video is an epic fail.

2011-12-30 09:59:57
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Rob, I don't agree that the video focuses on the myth.  It starts with Schneider talking about the disinformation campaign before showing the CO2 is plant food ad/myth.  As long as you set it up in the audience's mind that what's coming next is a myth, then the myth has less impact.

2011-12-30 10:16:29
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.201.71

Dana, the myths are peppered throughout the video. They are not exactly subtle. You are allowing your cognitive bias to cloud your thinking here. I can guarantee you focus strongly on what Steve Schneider has to say, so that, and your background knowledge, relegates the myths to the background in your mind.

But that doesn't mean an uninformed viewer will do the same. And no amount of rebuttal will undo the damage of the myths, they are jarring in the video, numerous, and too easy to remember, whereas the facts are not.

The video would have been far better just focusing on Schneider's speech, it's fantastic.

What I'm saying is that we have peer-reviewed research suggesting that this is the wrong way to communicate, and yet we're just going to ignore that and post the video anyway. Just me, but if I'm pointed to research that indicates I'm doing things wrong, I'm willing to adapt and change.   

2011-12-30 10:21:48
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I also think it helps that that old cigarette ad is in there as well.  Even though they're not directly contrasting the two it makes the CO2isGreen ad look like it will be the "cigarettes are healthy" ads from a future perspective.

This video would actually be a great test case for the backfire effect.  It would be interesting to do the same experiment.  Show some folks the video, test their comprehension, then test it again in 30 mins.  See what happens.

2011-12-30 10:22:49
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

I will be posting a comment that points out something that no one has mentioned yet that effectively targets the “moderate” majority and appeals to them – it’s easy to spot.

2011-12-30 10:27:05
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Rob, I just sent Stephen an email and pasted in that exact passage from John's book that you just posted.  I didn't ask him directly to edit the video but we'll see if he considers the impact and offers to do so.  ...Trying to play a little subtle psychology.

2011-12-30 10:42:35
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.149.82

dana, we would like that to be true, but it isn't.  Hence the maxim that there's no such thing as bad press.  Hence also all the very expensive advertizing campaigns whoses sole purpose is to push brand recognition.  Look at it this way, if this video were being broadcast on primetime TV, how much would "CO2 is Green" pay to have its add, and only its add placed right in the middle of the show?  And yet we give it to them for free.

What is worse, it is not placed near any part of the video that debunks it, or even debunks the use of paid advertizing.  Before it Schneider is talking about false balance in the news.  Afterwards he is talking about risk assessments.  The add is not even pertinent to that part of Schneider's speach, let alone rebutted by it.  That is why it is such a problem while the other denier sound clips in the video are not (or certainly not to anywhere near the same degree).  

Unfortunately the direct consequence of wide spread exposure to this video will be a strengthening of the "CO2 is plant food" myth.  People who are already convinced we need action will of course sail straight past the add and say what a wonderfull video it is (and it is).  But they are not the people we are trying to reach.  By reposting the video, we are gambling that, of those who are as yet unconvinced about the need for action on global warming who watch the video, significantly more will take home Schneider's message than the message of the add.  I am far from convinced of that.

If we could delete that add, I would say repost without qualm.  Failing that I believe we would be better of posting a transcript of Schneider's speach with appropriate editorial content to bring in his 1970's comments plus stills from video, and links to debunk myths mentioned.  Indeed, if we are going to post the video unedited, that may be a better way to introduce it.

2011-12-30 11:38:34
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.149.82

As a suggestion, instead of the plomax video, how about we run with these two as seperate posts?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXaruC4vJCU&feature=relmfu

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmlHbt5jja4&feature=related

2011-12-30 15:08:39
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

Now that Stephen’s video is out there in YouTubeland (with lots of copies made) it’s very dangerous to change it in any way.

Some smartass would pick up the difference and I can see WUWT headlines now “Warmers hide CO2 is plant food” and put on his blog the bit that was deleted. Might even be able to implicate SkS.

Even if the master copy was changed it could do immense damage – plant food myth would go viral and then we would be throwing away the debunking handbook rules.

Having watched part of the videos I personally don’t agree with Tom's suggestion – for starters they’re too long. The short sharp message is in the Plomax video.

2011-12-30 15:12:12
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223
I have to say, I think this is being blown out of proportion. The overwhelming message and celebration of Schneider as a communicator is clear in the video. Any impact, or backfire, from the myths is greatly overwhelmed by the overall message. We should also be celebrating and supporting this new talent in Stephen Thomson. We could easily see a great deal more powerful work come out of this guy. This is one small part of one video which could eventually turn into a larger body of powerful video work. Let's not stifle what might come because of 20 secs out of this 12 min video.
2011-12-30 15:43:52
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.252

Personally I defer to John when it comes to backfire effects - he's our resident expert.  If he supports publication of the video, then I don't think there's anything to worry about.  Besides, realistically, everyone who watches the video at SkS is going to be familiar with these climate myths.  They're going to have the same cognitive bias that we do.

Rob H - did you change the blog post URL?  Your link at the top seems to be broken.

2011-12-30 16:00:07
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.153.254

Brian - "The short sharp message is in the Plomax video" - no the short, sharp confusing message is in the video.

Rob H/Dana - you now have some personal insight into how the fake-skeptic mind works. Science is unimportant to it, only affirming previously held ideas or beliefs matter. It will not be budged by evidence.

2011-12-30 17:04:30
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Brian @30 Dec 2011, 3:08 PM,

"Some smartass would pick up the difference and I can see WUWT headlines now “Warmers hide CO2 is plant food” and put on his blog the bit that was deleted. Might even be able to implicate SkS."

You could not be more correct.

As Dana suggests, I think this is something for John Cook to make the call on.

2011-12-30 17:10:28
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.149.82

Brian Purdue, you may well be right about the dispersal of the video.  The correct response, however, is to simply not repost the video.  Then we get neither flack for editing the video, nor any backfire effect.

 

We should be very carefull in pushing a "short sharp message".  There is a radio personality in Australia who goes by the nickname of "the golden tonsils".  He was very influential in popular politics, and a large part of that was that he was able to deliver his short, sharp messages in a voice like a stilleto - a smooth modulated voice designed to slide its point deep into the brain while not getting caught up by rational thought.

 

If we are honest with ourselves, that is exactly the property we desire in "short, sharp messages".  It is why Plomax edited out the pauses and the ums and ahs from Schneider's speach, and edited in the pictures.  It is to slide the message in past the thought processors of the recipients.  Unlike the "golden tonsils" we are hoping to slide past irrational barriers to truth, and to invite people to follow up with rational thought.  But truth is, most people won't follow up with the thought and investigation of the evidence.  Consequently, the distinction we make is a small one, though important.

 

However, because the "short sharp message" is always a step away from rational persuasion towards arational persuasion, it is something we should do with care.  It is never of itself reason to prefer one message over another.  On the contrary, if we are forced to choose just one means of persuasion, we would reject the "short, sharp message" in favour of the long, clunky message that fully engages rational thought.

 

In this case the preference for the "short, sharp message" is particularly ironic as a large part of Schneider's message is the inadequacy of sound bites as information sources.  Personally, I think the long videos are truer to that message.

 

I won't comment on this anymore.  You all know my view, and I hope I can persuade you.  However, nothing will be gained by me endlessly expounding my reasons.  Personally I think a series of posts using Schneider videos, possibly breaking up the two longer videos into managable peices (hence multiple posts) would be much better on several grounds than the Plomax video.  We can also access the original 1979 interview to kick of the series if we want to.  But if John Cook feels otherwise, well it is his site and in the grand scheme of things it is a small issue.

2011-12-30 17:54:55
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
121.218.89.133

Tom.

It was exactly my opinion about the 'golden tonsil' quality of Schneiders presentation that convinced me it was worthwhile. Won't reach the seriously unconverted, but will have an impact on the more intelligent skeptic - Yes Virginia, they do exist. It is a view of mine, perhaps naive, that the qualities of the person will win out over the slick ad. Ad's without counter context can work. But put a real guy up against the slick ad and he will show it for the hollow thing it is. At least with the reachable audience. The unreachable are by definition unreachable so all we can seek to do is marginalise them.

Important point here is that our viewers experience of interacting with this is personal - that is the illusion the Internet creates. Whereas the old media like TV was impersonal and packaged and managed. The potential of this vid, which wasn't achieved, was to use the juxtaposition of the denialist ads with stephen's commentary to make a strong point. But that aspiration died in the editing suite. This doesn't get an Oscar for best Editing.

I assume thst the tonsils you refer to spent a significant part of his career promoting Valvoline Oil.

Post it and move on.

2011-12-30 18:21:53
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

I think people are forgetting we have the comments to rectify any possible shortcomings in the video. They will have to be well-chosen words though that only generalise – no mention of plant food.

I will be making comment and, to give advanced warning, can add something like this “It’s great to see the video wasn’t afraid to include some of the more prominent denial myths but with the help of the relevant rebuttal links, put them firmly to bed”.

2011-12-30 19:12:54
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.153.254

"I think people are forgetting we have the comments to rectify any possible shortcomings in the video"

I certainly don't think that. I think that the research highlighted in the Debunking Handbook suggests that dislodging the myths from innocent minds will be next to impossible.

Look at this another way - if you were trying to sell a product , would you pepper your advertisement with a competitor's product that rubbishes yours? Does that strike you as a winning communication strategy?

What is exactly is the point of the debunking handbook anyway? Can someone remind me?

2011-12-31 03:33:24
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Dana...  The link at the top still works for me.

2011-12-31 04:02:22
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Oh yeah, it's working for me now.  Odd that it didn't last night.

Rob P - I'd like to publish this today, given John's blessing, but at the same time I don't want to tick you off or make you feel like your opinions are being dismissed/not valued...

2011-12-31 04:03:14
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

A word of warning about the comments.  If we get fixated on the CO2isGreen ad in the comments we are more likely to drive the point of that message home instead of Schneider's overall message.

I would highly suggest that any comments regarding the ad get immediately redirected to the appropriate thread.  In fact, I would delete the post with an [off topic] comment and say take it to the "CO2 is Plant Food" thread.

2011-12-31 04:25:40
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

To echo Dana, I feel a little uncomfortable too.  I feel like I snagged up a video Tom Curtis said he thought shouldn't be posted and turned around and created a post for it.  [blush]  Obviously both Rob P and Tom C have strong reservations on posting this.

I'm trying to take a longer view with this.  This guy is REALLY talented.  The overall piece is extremely strong and compelling.  He takes Stephen Schneider, who was a top notch climate communicator, and lifts him to a new high.  There is a lot more that come out of this guy.  As I noted in the blog post, he very successfully put one of McKibben's OpEd pieces to video and has received over 330,000 views.  (By contrast Peter Sinclair and Peter Hadfield usually get about 20-60k views on their pieces.)

Just a few moments ago I got another email from Stephen saying he's looking for new material to put to audio/video presentations.  He suggested that the Debunking Handbook might be a good candidate.  I sent an email to John to get his opinion on it.  I think it's a fantastic idea that could help to propel the handbook to greater heights.

2011-12-31 05:21:47
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I agree, one of the main reasons I'd like to post this video is to encourage Stephen.  If we do, and also get him to take the Handbook to heart in future videos, he could produce some really good, high-impact stuff (especially if he does a video specifically on the Handbook).

2011-12-31 07:10:41
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.145.31

Dana, this isn't my blog and I don't have control over what is published. It's now a group effort building on all the work previously laid down. I've argued my case as strongly as I can. If it's published I'm not going to throw a wobbly. 

2011-12-31 07:21:11
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Throw a wobbly?  Dang you Brits have some weird sayings.

I'll let it ruminate for another day and probably publish tomorrow, in case there are any other major objections.

2011-12-31 09:10:52
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.240.132

Brit? This is downunder!

2011-12-31 09:57:38
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.252

Oh yeah, you're the Kiwi aren't you?  I can't keep you foreigners or your weird expressions straight!

2011-12-31 11:11:23
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.149.82

If we repost the video, Rob Honeycutt's advise is excellent.  I suggest, however, that the first such post (if any) be answered by pointing out the financial sources of the add (from sourcewatch).  Discussion of the financial backing should be ontopic.  Discussion of CO2 is plant food, or CO2 is good should be of topic and redirected.  Comments initiated by SkS members should focus entirely on the positive content of the video, ie, what Schneider said in 1970 and in 2010. 

2011-12-31 14:11:59
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.211.132

"Dang you Brits have some weird sayings"

I'll put that down to typical Canadian confusion. 

2011-12-31 15:03:40
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.252

Touché!

2012-01-01 14:15:25
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

Well the cat's out of the bag now.

2012-01-01 23:39:48
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
138.130.143.200

Rob P, You wouldn't possibly be alluding to a clause in the Australian consitution would you, the one referring to leaving the option open for New Zuuland (I think thats the correct pronunciation) to become the 7th state of Australia. The invitation is always open....

Whats the old saw about countries divided by a common language? At least we both spell it the same way, even if some folks do get the pronunciation a bit wrong. - 2*3, Foot Attire and doing the old 'rumpy pumpy' all sem to sound the same. I suppose it saves on vowels.

Reminds me of Terry Pratchet and his stories about the Mac Nac Feegle - the Wee Free Men. Ships are big fluffy things that run around in fields - taste good but. Humans are 'BigJobs'. And being 'tired' is referred to as being pished - what did you think I meant?

Come to think of it, I can think of a few Denialists that the Wee Free Men could sought out right and proper.

We have an expedition to go on. Its Dangerous. We might not come back! CRIVENS, sounds good to me. So how do we decide who volunteers? The Traditional Feegle way. We need 30 of you'se guys. So we take the last 30 left standing. This BigJob disagrees wi' ya dooes he. He's skupticul about suumat oour uther. Weerrl, we caan soort hiim ooout right and proper like. Has ankles wi ne'er be the saame.

If you haven't read any of Terry Pratchett, start immediately. Mainline him. A needle into a vein and start taking it in. A tourist in Ankh Morepork. new to the town, has been seeing the sights, and the 'lovely ladies'. And the imp in his camera who paints the pictures keeps compaining about how he is running out of pink. You need your Coat of Arms painted? Go to the Guild of Heralds who can do it, although the Hippogriff has a cold today and can't pose. The Assasins Guild would never consider killing anyone. But they are quite willing to inhume them for you. The principle product of a dwarven bakery is Battle Bread. And when a Gargoyle joins the City Watch they will probably be assigned to covert surveilance duty. You might employ some mercenaries, of whom the most feared is Cohen the Barbarian and his troop. Although one of them is in a wheelchair - Fierce but. Then there is DEATH. You know, the skeletal guy with big scythe who always speaks IN CAPITALS. But his horse is nice - called Binky. And when his other fellow 3 riders last went out on 'a job', well it did get a mite embarrasing. War etc, we're coming right along. But we just might stop off at this Pub restaurant for some 'refreshments'. We come out 6 hours later to get on with business and some daft sod has stolen all our horses - all 4 of them.

Life has its serious stuff. It has it's trite stuff. Then there is Pratchett. What do the French say? C'est La Vie, C'est La Guerre, C'est la Tu-Jours La Pratchett

2012-01-02 23:25:18
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.145.36

Aarrghh!

2012-01-03 00:54:53
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.208.248

Glenn, 7th state of Awwstrarleeyaa? I don't think that's necessary, you've got enough of our rejects to start up your own.

2012-01-03 07:41:49
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

My comment on comments being made Schneider post – and I could be wrong.

Are some of these people “trolls in sheep’s clothing” – there’s “communication/video experts” that are writing long comments that distract people from the real purpose of the post.

What they are doing is destroying people's confidence in the message - a well proven tactic of the enemy.

How many times have I seen “I’m a scientist ---------------“and then go on with a lot of garbage.

2012-01-03 11:08:51
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.248.2

I dunno Brian. Some of the comments I've seen are from people who are deeply avowed 'warmists.'