2011-01-29 07:46:38Carter Crocks
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21

Dana might be crushed but it may be that Lindzen Illusions is getting bumped by Carter Crocks as the possible next series. The reason is because Rob Honeycutt and I have been talking with Peter Sinclair (of Climate Crock of the Week fame) about collaborating on a series that examines Carter's many crocks. It doesn't hurt that Peter already uses the Crock term - a happy coincidence. Carter has a video series which I'm guessing Peter will use in his YouTube videos.

Anyway, just for future reference, I've started the Carter Crocks page:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptics.php?f=Bob_Carter

I also added a few articles - Carter has conveniently given us a summary of all his work here:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm

2011-01-29 07:58:44booooo
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Aw man, can I at least do that first Lindzen Illusion next week?  It seems like it shouldn't matter if we inter-mix the various disinformation denier series once we finish with Monckton.

2011-01-29 08:15:21
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.50.53

Dana,

I understand your enthusiasm. However, thinking of the public-relations impact, I think it would be much more impressive to roll out all the tanks at once, rather than have them straggle out in ones and twos, as is likely to be the case if attention is split amongst two or three opponents at once. 

Think of Germany attacking the USSR while already engaged in battle with the British: the second front has been considered a major strategic error.

If we roll out a wholesale attack on all a denier's positions, he's got so much more to deal with than if you just attack one or two of them. That puts him at a disadvantage. 

For the same reason, I would not roll out the tanks on CCs until the response on MMs has more or less stabilized: You may need to marshal all forces to crush him from all directions at once. Not good to have one of our most prolific writers tied up in one-on-one struggle with another opponent.

This is public relations, it is like a war: we want to put them at unfair disadvantage. If he looks swamped, he is swamped: "Perception is Reality."

2011-01-29 08:36:27
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

 I just had a Skype chat with Peter this morning.  He's currently working on a piece that pulls on an AGU lecture by Ellen Mosley-Thompson.  We discussed him doing a short piece following that to dovetail with the J Stors Hall misrepresentation of the GISP2 data.  My Crux of a Core #1.

After that he would like to start on a Carter video that he says he mostly has written but just needs to piece together.

The way we discussed this was (and I hope you guys like this idea), we could use a Crock of the Week video to help launch each new denier series at SkS.  So, we could pull people in with his more lively, public-centric style.  Back that up with a post on Climate Progress (which he usually automatically gets from Joe).  Then his video (and maybe Joe's site) can direct people over to SkS where the pros here can work over our subject with abandon.  You know, get medieval on 'em for a week or two.

The other part about this is, it gives Peter time to pull together another video for the our next target.

That said, it sounds like Peter's pretty set on this Ellen Mosley-Thompson video.  Then J Stors Hall video he thinks will be just a short piece that he can turn around quickly.  But it may be a little while before he can knock out a Carter piece.

That kind of makes Peter's videos the bottleneck here.  Unless we can offer him various forms of support so that he can knock out videos faster.

He should be here on this forum today or in the next day or two so that we can talk about it more. 

2011-01-29 09:03:13
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.50.53

Rob,

Could you give a 30-second backgrounder on Peter Clair & CCoW?

2011-01-29 09:05:37Lindzen Illusions
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21

Dana, I have to go with Neal. The important thing here is that we get maximum impact for our efforts. So we have to be strategic, not rush into things, but take our time - perhaps even follow Randy Olsen's advice and spend a comparable amount of time and effort on marketing as we do on writing content. I didn't do that with the Guide to Skepticism and have regretted it.

So we want to at least spend a few weeks examining Lindzen's work, building up our database of arguments he uses and fashion a strategy on how to best debunk him. I know your Lindzen rebuttal is nearly in the holster and ready to fire but we don't want to shoot it off prematurely (hmm, I could've worded that better).

At the very least, let's take our time preparing content, the general layout of the Lindzen series and discuss strategy over that period. What exactly are we trying to achieve with these skeptic series? Who are we trying to reach? And how do we achieve that most effectively?

2011-01-29 09:26:23grumble
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
Well dang, I said in the Guardian comments (several times) that I was going to look at Lindzen's calculations in more detail in the next week or two here.  I'm still going to write it up while it's fresh in my mind, at least.  If we need to sit on it, so be it.
2011-01-29 10:31:13Help!
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.184.89

John 

I would love to help but I'm not exactly sure what you need done. I'm a little late to the Monckton rebuttals, so I won't meddle there (excellent work by the way) but I'd be pleased to contribute to the Carter Crocks. 

Perhaps a good place  to start would be the "Ten Facts" and "Ten Myths" links at the top of his website. If you like, I could go through the  ten"facts" and offer rebuttals for each of them. The same could be done with his "myths". The problem is that Carter offers no real references.

I assume that you want any contributions to be entered as a Forum Post. 

Also, I use Google Chrome as a browser and have not tried the Firefox add-in. Is it important to use it? I can easily switch to FF if required. 

Carter has a book available, which I could order and  attempt debunk but this would take a couple of weeks at least. Has anyone read it or has anyone seen a thorough debunking anywhere? I don't think that we can do a thorough debunking of Carter unless we take apart his major publication.

 I just watched  this video clip: what a crock of snark and sophistry! (One was all I could manage).He seems to use the same bogus arguments used recently by Don Easterbrook that were so ably debunked at Hot Topic

I was amused around the  6 minute mark when Carter talked about how catastrophic another Little Ice Age would be for our grain crops and how there's a good chance that we heading into another one in 20-30 years. Talk about a climate alarmist!

2011-01-29 11:21:31
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Neal...  You can check out Peter Sinclair's work here.

Peter worked with Al Gore for a while.  He's produced over 60 8-10 min videos busting deniers.  He's not a scientist.  He's a graphics and video producer but has worked on climate and energy issues for a long time.  His videos almost always get a shout out from Joe Romm at Climate Progress whenever he knocks out a new one.

From what I know about Peter, like everyone here (I believe), he has his own work that he does to feed the family and does this climate work on the side.  Like me, he has young children and believe climate is going to be the biggest issue dominating our kids adult lives, and believes he needs to do something.

Peter has a strong following with his videos.  Most of his videos get 20,000+ views.  There's always a lot of activity in the comments sections where I've spent a ton of time setting deniers straight on the science of climate change.

I ran this whole idea past John a few weeks ago.  We discussed how effective it could be to coordinate across these various venues to boost everyone's profile. 

I'm certainly not trying to delay or co-opt what is obviously a great movement on SkS.  I would just love to see this extended in order get more impact for the effort.

2011-01-29 11:33:46
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.50.53

Rob, don't get me wrong: I think a cross-media coordinated program is a great idea.

I just don't have a TV, so I'm not sure who anybody is.

2011-01-29 11:54:47
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Neal...  Yeah, we pulled the plug on our TV as well.  

Peter, as far as I know, doesn't do TV work.  At least, all his climate material is on Youtube.

2011-01-29 11:58:58
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223
There's another guy everyone should check out, if they haven't already.  Peter Hadfield has done a series of about 12 or so videos on climate issues.  He's a journalist with an incredible resume.  But he's a very serious science reporter and probably one for maintaining his independence.
2011-01-29 17:30:02Lindzen's rebuttal
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21

Actually, Dana, I think you should publish that article and soon. Would be a good follow-up to FEU (third in the trilogy if you will).

It just doesn't have to be a Lindzen Illusion post but a stand-alone post. Just like posts we've done about Monckton but before the Monckton Myths. 

In fact, if you deem it suitable, could you adapt what you've done from that post or from the FEU post as a rebuttal to "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected"? As you're almost there, that's a rebuttal we could have live before the Tuesday launch - it will add another Monckton Myth to the ever growing pile.

2011-01-30 04:20:15back and forth we go
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.210

Hah I'm reminded of my job, where I keep getting jerked around as people change their minds about what needs to be done ;-)

Did Monckton use "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected"?  I don't see it listed on his page.  But anyway, this Lindzen argument and rebuttal is exactly that - claiming that if the IPCC climate sensitivity range is correct, that planet should have warmed more by now.  So it would be easy to adapt into that rebuttal.  I got a lot of it done last night too, so finishing by Tuesday isn't a problem.

2011-01-30 06:09:02ready for review
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.210

Taking it to Lindzen - A Case Study of A Climate Scientist Skeptic

Didn't mean to derail this discussion.  Back to talking about Carter!

2011-01-30 09:26:58
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.52.112

I still recommend holding off on publishing this article on Lindzen:

- If it catches any notice, Dana may be tied up for days dueling with Lindzen on his own territory

- This will be during the time that we'll need "all hands on deck" dealing with any fireback from Monckton

- Remember Germany's strategic error in WWII: Don't start a fight on two fronts at once.

 

2011-01-30 10:21:56
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I totally agree with Neal.  I'm completely loving all of Dana's amazing articles - he's clearly our prize fighter! - but I think we can make that effort have far more impact by coordinating efforts, and as Neal suggests, picking our battles. 

2011-01-30 11:28:54
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.210

I'd say we should either publish it tomorrow (so as to keep the trilogy close together, but still leave a couple days before the Monckton Myth summary hits), or wait until next weekend or so.

I'm fine either way.  The main purpose here is to put something together for the "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected" rebuttal before MM goes live (Monckton used that argument in at least one of his articles).

I'd be pretty surprised if Lindzen gives any response to my article though.

2011-01-30 11:49:26
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

It might be interesting to see if Lindzen has a sensitive spot.  I remember watching a Dessler/Lindzen debate where Dessler said something that obviously got under his skin and Lindzen just wouldn't shut up, speaking out of turn and such.  I believe it was in relation to LC09.

I bet posting a series of articles debunking him might raise his ire.  We've had Monckton and Pielke stop in.  I bet ol' Lindy might do the same.

I'm buying a beer for the author who first provokes Lindzen!  ;-)  (That might be challenging for me if it's anyone other than Dana.) 

2011-01-30 11:54:48
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.52.112

- If it's really for Monckton, I would aim it at Monckton, not Lindzen: This will be Monckton's week, so let's make it "all Monckton, all the time"!

- Surely the goal is to stir up some excitement, so why not hope for the best? This would be a great way to drag Lindzen into the light of day, spewing his out-of-the-corner-of-his-mouth half-lies. The probability is higher, if we save it for Lindzen's week, where we do his whole repertoire: "This is your life, Richard Lindzen!"

2011-01-30 14:38:15
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

You know, getting started on the theme of linking in Peter Sinclair's work, it might be worthwhile adding a link to the two videos that Peter did on Monckton back in the middle of last year.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/34/JfA1LpiYk2o

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/32/XjhTrCgVb5U 

2011-01-30 17:03:33Monckton's unrebutted arguments
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.158.135

“Did Monckton use “Earth hasn’t warmed as much as expected”? I don’t see it listed on his page.”

That’s because the page of Monckton arguments only lists those for which we have rebuttals. John, could you change it to be like the individual Monckton article pages, with a “Note to SkS authors” listing all of his arguments which still need rebuttals?

2011-01-30 19:28:54Note to SkS authors
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21

Yes, forgot to do that until this afternoon. It now lists all the unrebutted arguments ordered by Monckton usage:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptics.php?f=Christopher_Monckton&t=1

As a web designer, hate those ugly URLs - on Monday, will try to find the time to rewrite the URLs to something friendlier (and less hackable) like:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_args.htm

2011-02-04 14:19:38Just a heads up...
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I'm working with Peter Sinclair on a piece that he wants to knock out quickly on GISP2.  Skyping with him tomorrow afternoon.

After than I think up next for him is tackling a Carter video.  If we can start prepping a bunch of Carter articles then his video would be a great way to launch the series. 

2011-02-04 15:13:33That soon?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21

Dang, not quite ready for Carter Crocks yet.

The first question bouncing around in my mind - do we start with launching a Carter Crocks page or do what we did with MM - just have a series of blog posts first then launch the page? Probably the latter option but I like the idea of having a CC button on each blog post.

Hmm, I can always go back and update past blog posts, adding the button. In fact, I think I'll do that to all the existing MM blog posts.

What does Peter want to have in the Carter video? Is there a particular set of arguments or a single key argument identified in Carter's work?

When does Peter want to launch the video?

We may need to do what we did with MM, start an intensive effort to pore over Carter's work, add it to the database, identify common arguments, develop a theme.

2011-02-04 15:18:17
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.52.184
Speaking of which: How is the MM program going over?
2011-02-04 15:33:18CC
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.210

I could see doing an introductory post before launching into the Crocks.  But it might be more effective to launch if we've already got a bunch of Carter Crocks rebuttals written.

Another issue is that there's likely to be a lot of overlap between MMs and CCs.  How do we handle it when they make the same argument?

2011-02-04 15:48:28MM response
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21

In terms of MM response, the best gauge I can give is the # of blogs who posted about it which was big, very big. Google "Monckton Myths" for an overview. I had a cursory look at stats and the # of visits on the day after MM was launched was the highest single day - 21,017 visits which slightly pipped the previous record when the Guardian first broke the story of the iPhone app (20,865 visits on 18 Feb 2010). Pity we didn't get my article into the Guardian :-)

Now we continue to reinforce MM by every MM blog post featuring the button. Hopefully more sites will adopt the button over time. Ditto for CC - I suggest we start blog posts then later on launch the official CC page.

What if there's overlap? I think we tend to cover arguments unique to that person - if Carter is rehashing someone else's material, I probably wouldn't bother rebutting it. It'll come up on the CC page anyway, in the list of arguments, linking to the defnitive rebuttal. But I guess we take it on a case by case basis. Perhaps Carter rehashes a Monckton argument but with his own unique spin so our blog post can borrow from MM but updated. We'll see.

2011-02-05 07:25:22
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

John...  Don't worry.  It takes usually several weeks for Peter to pull together a new video.  I would expect he'd have a Carter video before the end of the month sometime.

We are talking today only about the J Stors Hall article I wrote.  He wants to just do a short video to link up with that and follow up on his latest video on ice cores.  

2011-03-09 04:26:33
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.113.129

Hi Rob,

The weak point in the "crux" article is that you can't be completely convincing as to the real reference Carter is using.

Not your fault, of course; but if he should respond, it would be perfectly fair to ask him to identify the source of his graphs.