2011-09-17 17:55:48Pielke - Posting vs Commenting
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.176.68.147

I would like to make a general observation about how we handle RP Snr's appearance here. While he is willing to come to SkS and 'debate', no matter what we may thinlk of the quality of what he has to say, we CANNOT put up posts attacking his positions. That is using our editorial power to bush-whack him. If we are to keep the standards of SkS high we CANNOT do this.

 

That is not to say that we may not put up posts that are invitation to RPSnr to discuss various topics, and it might well be really useful to create threads designed to create a dialog. Think about the lurkers. He comes here to talk to us and we immediately do it in a way that puts him at a huge disadvantage.

The integrity with which we conduct ourselves is an important tool in our armoury. That helps win over the lurkers. 

So too the tendency for all of us to pile in with comments at him can be counter-productive. Look at it in reverse. Imagine going to Jo Nova's site. Make one comment and suddenly you are trying to respond to a dozen of her imps (elves doesn't really cut it here)

RPSnr will withdraw from the conversation if he has to respond to too many of us. And we don't want him to withdraw. We want him too stay engaged so the lurkers can watch the ebb & flow. But if they think we are mobbing him, he becomes the victim.

Perhaps this thrtead could be used to coordinate replies to him from a limited number of people...

2011-09-17 18:23:30
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

It is one big and predictable mess.

2011-09-17 18:28:24
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

I think the right approach is to respond to the questions that he posed, in a disciplined fashion.

Can we agree we're going to do that, instead?

2011-09-17 19:05:16Current status
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

Work on Q3:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=2778

 

Work on Q6:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=2781&r=8

 

Work on A2:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=2779&r=13

 

Draft of note to Pielke: WE NEED TO DECIDE IF WE'RE GOING TO SEND THIS OUT

"Thank you for your courteous responses to our posting and its update. We are pleased to have the opportunity to clarify each other's views on these topics. We will consult internally to prepare a well-considered statement of our answers; in addition, we may clarify further on our original questions, some of which were not answered exactly along the lines of our curiosity.

Be assured that we will have a response in due course."

2011-09-17 19:59:43
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

While I appreciate all the work put into this, let me put my two cents in - not as an "executive decision" but how I see it. If others see differently, please argue your point. Consider the "goodyear blimp" theory (Pielke is just trying to distract from Spencer/Christy's misinformation, first with the UAH gallop and now this other gallop of all of Pielke's fav talking points rolled up into a single gallop). Do we really want to chase Pielke's blimp?

Pielke's questions are interesting and worth exploring and I suggest we do explore them at a later date. But I suggest if we do respond to Pielke, we realign the conversation to where it should be - how Pielke can tolerate the blatant misinformation from S/C?
So I would be happy to do a blog post (that may or may not feature "Cherry Pielking" in the title) that puts this whole conversation in perspective. Point out that Pielke attacked us then pointed at the UAH blimp. When called to account, he pointed at the issues blimp. He displayed an amazing ability to overlook the transgressions of his colleagues. According to Pielke, Christy doesn't consider 70s science the same as current climate science - in stark contrast to Christy's own words under oath before Congress. But my thinking is we shouldn't let Pielke get away with his diversionary tactic.
Thoughts, comments?
2011-09-17 20:12:18I think we should move forward, not look back
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

- The fact that he has not responded to a publicly stated accusation of misplaced blame is a self-accusation: He's implicitly admitting that it's true, "Nolo contendere." But I don't see how it benefits us to go after him like a pack of jackals around a lion. It looks messy and unfair.

- If we want to put it on the record, we need to HAVE a record: Which is one role I suggest for a public response to his questions.

- Going forward, it is good for our image to conduct a courteous exchange of views with him to:

a) Clarify our questions that were not fully answered; and

b) Respond in a clear (though cautious) manner to his questions.

Under a), I would promote the issues we raised earlier about his support for S & C: These are items A1 - A3, and one is already "in the works"; the other 2 will begin when we have a decision about direction.

I would NOT get hung up over trying to extract an apology from Pielke: It's probably not going to happen, and I think we can be big enough not to need it.

I think we have a lot to gain from this interaction: Pielke is perhaps the single most eminent skeptical climatologist in the world. If we can "hold our own" with him (not do anything stupid), I think it would be an enormous feather in our cap.

You may think of this as "following the blimp"; I think of it as looking for a fishing boat and discovering a submarine.

2011-09-17 20:19:09
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.23.51

Do both.  Post a firm "we're reeling in this debate now" post, and follow up with one responding to his questions.  We make it clear that it is the former that this debate started about, and that he tried to shift the debate around that.

Thoughts?

2011-09-17 23:40:17
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Agreed with Alex C.  Pielke is not one to admit error, so all he will do (if he continues to post) is to shift goalposts and evade. 

Continue to press him on the other issues on other posts, but also we need to continue to pin him to the wall on his ad-homs on the existing thread.

He is on the defensive and vulnerable.

Carpe diem.

2011-09-17 23:47:18Rather than...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

repsonding to all of Pielke's questions in a single post, do a series of posts over time.

Call it "SkS Reponds" or somehting more appropriate.

Serial posting let's us see how Pielke responds to an initial post before we move on to the second. We can gain valuable insights into his thought process with each successive round of exchanges.

BTW, I suspect that Pielke Sr. did not personally author all of the posts on Dana's initial article. Pielke Jr. is probably his ghost writer.  

 

2011-09-17 23:48:21
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

I've proposed a "reel-in" statement here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=2790&r=3

2011-09-17 23:50:09Pielke's ego...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

is what drove him to post on the comment thread to Dana's initial article. He sees himself as the cat playing with a bunch of mice. In that regard, he could care less how many SkS mice are nipping at him.

2011-09-17 23:53:06John Cook
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

How about posting an "Open Letter" to Pielke Sr expressing your personal dismay over his false accusations and restating what SkS is all about?   

2011-09-18 00:14:30
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

B:

- Yes, but it looks bad to readers. It looks like a great lion being mobbed by snarling jackals. I don't like it.

- Letter from John: What I think that will elicit from Pielke is: "If you want to be taken seriously, change the snarky names of your series." What's the come-back?

2011-09-18 01:18:52nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Do the comments  posted* constitute "snarling jackals" or "wolfpack"? Like beauty, it's all in the eye of the beholder. 

*Many of which were uilaterally deleted by Daniel Bailey without consulting us before hand.

 

2011-09-18 01:23:14
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

I think the scatter-shot free-fire of the commenters doesn't give a good impression.

2011-09-18 01:25:38JC's Open Letter
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

We'll deal with Pielke's response after we see it.

BTW, I favor changing the "Christy Crock" label to something less abrasive. Some of our readers do as well.

 

2011-09-18 01:28:35
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

I like to know I have a response in mind to predictable returns.

I've seen lots of people paint themselves into a corner in live argument. It's fun (in a Schadenfreude kind of way) when you can see it coming: Not so much fun if you're the one in the corner.

2011-09-18 01:58:15nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I doubt that you or any other SkS can accurately predict how Roger Weasel will respond.

As far as being painted into a corner, all we need to do is walk over the wet paint to get out of the corner.

2011-09-18 02:02:49
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

But not preparing for rather obvious possibilities is not very smart.

2011-09-18 02:12:44John Cook's Open Letter
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

John Cook's open letter should address head-on Pielke's admonition (repeated ad naseum by him) that:

"If you want to be taken more seriously by others outside of your view on the climate issue, you should be provide more balance."  

2011-09-18 02:14:42
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125
My opinion - first I like the idea of having John author the response, since he obviously best represents SkS. I think Alex and neal have a decent framework to work with in the link provided by neal above. I'm still on the fence as to whether we 'chase the blimp' in addition to trying to bring the discussion back to where it started. If we do answer Pielke's questions, I think the answers need to be as short and to the point as possible [i.e. see my suggested response to Q3]. The more we say, the more Pielke has to nitpick, and the more he can drag the discussion into his comfort zone. His comfort zone being that OHC is the proper measure of global warming and hasn't increased much in the past 5-10 years. That's his strategy for downplaying the dangers of AGW, and what he's trying to do with his questions.
2011-09-18 02:22:12
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

" His comfort zone being that OHC is the proper measure of global warming and hasn't increased much in the past 5-10 years. That's his strategy for downplaying the dangers of AGW, and what he's trying to do with his questions.

 

 

See this...

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=2783&r=0

2011-09-18 02:26:49
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

The advantage of posting a single well-thought-out response is that we pin down a clear position, that can be referred to; instead of a flurry of comments from different people, with different assumptions and angles.

I repeat: If you want to send him a letter complaining about SkS being accused of nasty ad hominems about UAH, please prepare an answer to the question, "Why do you introduce ridicule into what is supposed to be a serious scientific discussion? What is the value of doing that? Is this the way you think scientific controversy is best handled professionally? Can you expect to be taken seriously by people that you treat in this manner?"

I can't say if Pielke will do that; but in his shoes, that's what I would do.

2011-09-18 02:34:03Badgersouth is now John Hartz
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I've been plainning to do this for a while. Now is as good as time as any. 

2011-09-18 02:41:05nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

The Open Letter by John Cook that I envision would not replace the formal SlS response to his questions. John's letter would restate the SkS mission and the basic values it embodies.

I also believe that a serial response to Pilke's questions is preferrable to a single all-encompassing response.  

2011-09-18 02:52:21
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

- Any complaint along the lines of "You said SkS was ad-hominizing UAH" is vulnerable to the attack I described.

- A serial response maximizes Pielke's advantages and minimizes our's: By spreading out our responses over time, it forces us to have to work harder to ensure we don't contradict or otherwise trip on ourselves; it also means that we have to generate the response in real-time, making it harder to consult with each other. This is "leading with the chin".

2011-09-18 03:38:45nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

A serial response has two distinct advantages.

1. It focuses the discussion on a single issue.

2. It keeps Pielke engaged over a longer period of time.

 

2011-09-18 03:44:24
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

1: On offline discussion can be concentrated on one topic at a time; almost has to be.

2: Engaging Pielke over an extended period is not an obvious advantage to us: How do we control out-of-line commenting? When he says something clever, who's on first, who takes the first swing at it? Pielke doesn't need to confer with anybody, he's a one-man show.

2011-09-18 04:55:09nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

You said: "1: On offline discussion can be concentrated on one topic at a time; almost has to be."

What the heck does an off-line discussion have to do with posting responses to Pielke as a series? 

2011-09-18 05:01:59
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

A fixed response is created not in real-time, but in internal posting & email, as we have been doing for A2, Q3 and so on. Each discussion is separate (unless need for cross-referencing is discovered).

2011-09-18 05:06:54nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Internal SkS processes has nothing to do with the question of whether a single comprehensive response to Pielke is superior to a sereial posting of responses to each of his questions.

2011-09-18 05:12:32
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125
Pielke already played the card you describe in the comments, neal, saying he objects to us creating a "rogues gallery". My response is that his colleagues are behaving as rogues by misinforming the public and policymakers. Thus a "rogues gallery" is entirely appropriate. Moreover, it's not nearly as bad as another "colleague" he's defended, Watts, with his "Al Gore is an Idiot" category. I have no problem responding to Pielke on this subject. It would get him back on our turf, forced to confront the myths and misinformation propagated by his "colleagues".
2011-09-18 05:18:39
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

Dana,

I saw that; he didn't play the card very well.

I would have quoted Huxley, against Wilberforce.

2011-09-18 08:08:42My gut says that...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Roger Weasel will not do another post on the comment thread to Dana's initial article.

2011-09-18 14:35:24
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.100.72

This kind of blog "war" will not make SkS look good. Pielke is just baiting us to a meaningless "debate". To a casual observer, debate is a signal of uncertainty. This is exactly what Pielke wants here. Discuss with him in the comment threads if he participates there but otherwise ignore him. High profile public debate will only give points to Pielke no matter how wrong he is.

2011-09-18 15:01:00
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Ari - don't view it as a blog war, view it as a real-time debunking.  Pielke's main argument is that we can measure global warming with the upper 700 meter OHC, and it hasn't increased since 2003, therefore global warming stopped.  He's wrong on all counts, and it's not hard to show this.

Usually we use quotes from papers or interviews or whatnot as the meat for our posts.  In this case the only real difference is that the meat will be provided for us directly by Pielke.  Just a slightly different format, but basically not different from what we normally do.  And we'll cut off what could potentially become the next big "skeptic" myth (if Pielke has anything to say about it).

Note that Pielke will obviously never admit he's wrong, but we just need to show his errors with the scientific literature, as we always do, then move on.

2011-09-18 16:20:33
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.100.72

The point is not how I see it, but how the general audience will see it.

2011-09-18 17:37:53
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

Ari,

A clean response, without sniping or snarking, is not going to hurt our reputation: Rather the reverse.

Particularly since I don't believe Pielke gains points from interacting with us; but we gain them from interacting with him. He seems to be quite a high-profile climate researcher. So it's quite interesting that he's obviously paying attention to what we say; if we handle this in an adult manner, it could be quite good for us.

2011-09-18 18:24:29
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I agree with Ari.

2011-09-18 21:30:25Will post draft tomorrow on the forum
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191
Sorry about the delay but was unable to finish the "Chasing Pielke's Goodyear blimp" post tonight. Will finish it off on the train to work tomorrow and post it on the forum when I get into campus, around 12 to 13 hours from now.

So long as my blimp post is not a train wreck, I suggest our first response is the blimp post, highlighting Pielke's diversionary tactics. Then we'll chase after his blimp anyway in a post or series of posts addressing his questions.

2011-09-19 00:45:52
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125
Certainly agreed John's post should be our first response. And as long as it's a cordial discussion of the science, I don't see it as a blog war and don't think readers will either. Like neil says, we just need to watch the tone.
2011-09-19 04:40:22
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.100.72

Neal: "A clean response, without sniping or snarking, is not going to hurt our reputation: Rather the reverse."

I understand your point of view but I think that when framed within a debate it will do that only in the eyes of those who already understand the issues involved (and perhaps already are "in our side"). I'm afraid that the people who I think should be our main target audience - i.e. the people who don't yet understand these issues and perhaps haven't made up their mind yet - won't see it that way. They just see a debate and won't have a clue who's right or wrong and I suspect they just conclude that the situation seems to be uncertain with this alleged climate change as there are seemingly knowledgeable people arguing both sides.

It's perfectly ok to publish debunkings of false claims but I think they should be done separately from the debate, independently.

2011-09-19 04:48:32
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

Ari,

This is what we have so far:

18 Sep 2011, 3:16 PM

at

http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=2794&r=22

What are your specific concerns?

2011-09-19 05:37:49
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.53.162

Ari - "they just see a debate and won't have a clue who's right or wrong"

That's why it's important to spell things out in plain language too. As far as the OHC is concerned it is simple to show how Pielke is wrong.

2011-09-19 06:14:44My opinon
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Commodore King laid out an excellent course of action at the get-go. Let's stay the course. 

2011-09-19 06:26:03
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I think even most casual readers will be able to recognize that Pielke's arguments are based on severe cherrypicking.  If we do our job, they should be able to.

2011-09-19 08:51:04comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.207.122

having read what was written over at pielke's blog recently I have to say that we would have been better suited to have moved his comments regarding the science over to the appropriate thread for him and to tell him we did so but that if he wishes to discuss the ad hominem accusation the relevant thread is the one he was on.

It actually doesn't come across the best to me the way in which he has it framed. He is quite good at that and on his website it makes us look like we are pricks.

Regarding his A3, i'm not sure that's quite as easy to tackle as I once thought. To be honest what he is saying isn't necessarily debunkable. It is true that many things are important to be considered. I'm not sure I want to answer that one or can at this time given that I just lost my computer with all my software, data and etc... on it. At this point I just have some other things I have to do to get back on track unfortunately.

2011-09-19 09:09:47
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

Robert,

Sorry to hear about your computer; I hope it's just a temporary inconvenience.

Pielke will have his presentation of it; and we will have ours. If we do a good job on the counter-presentation, I think things will be fine.

But I think that session showed the dangers of a comment-fest: it's hard to keep it under control.

2011-09-19 09:17:01Thanks Neal
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.207.122

Thanks Neal,
I will find out tomorrow what the prognosis is on my computer. I do have back-ups (located all over the place) and I'm hoping I don't have to scramble through them all piecing together my life haha... I don't think it will be too much of an inconvenience either way, if it is going to be expensive to fix it i'm just going to buy a very cheap computer tomorrow and load things on so I can get back to work!

Either way I will contribute to whatever people decide they on doing for that answer.

2011-09-19 09:38:39Work on A3
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=2805

I've put down something very simple.

2011-09-19 09:58:55JH
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

Actually, I've always seen myself as more of a "Subcommandante Neal" character.

2011-09-19 10:53:33Draft of blimp post now up for feedback
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

I've drafted up a response to Pielke and started a thread on it:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=2806

The idea is this is a bridge to our answers to Pielke's questions - we can chase his blimp but we also make people aware of what Pielke is doing. Have a look, post some feedback - would like to go live with this later today.