2011-09-18 08:59:10Pielke still at it on his blog
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/my-interactions-with-skeptical-science-a-failed-attempt-so-far-for-constructive-dialog/

Accepts no repsonsibilities for his actions, or is that inaction...?

Just more innuendo and BS and quote mining.

He is also being incredibly juvenile.  Can we post a whole whack of shit from WUWT and his blog?  This IS not constructive on his part.

Someone ought to remind him of the comments policy here:

"No off topic comments. Stick to the subject at hand. If you have something to say about an unrelated topic, use the Search form in the left margin to find the appropriate page."

Other peple's comments were deleted.  Pielke recieved preferential treatment here.  He is a liar.

2011-09-18 10:05:31
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

The question remains, a constructive dialog on what?  He's not having a dialog.  He's dodging a dialog in that he won't answer direct questions.  

I say go ahead with the responses to his questions.  He's not going to like the responses but I think they're being crafted in ways that are reasonable responses to what he's asking.

2011-09-18 10:11:54
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

What a crybaby.

2011-09-18 10:25:30
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

He really is a bit of a whiner.  I'm not at all impressed with his communication skills.

2011-09-18 10:27:32
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

What a wuss.

Looks like I pissed him off (mission accomplished).  Just a garden-variety troll denier with a bully-pulpit.  Glad to see I'm prominently featured, especially that last moderation comment on Skywatcher's comment (I knew that one would get his goat).

 

Guys, we've really gotten under his skin.  Keep the heat on; you know he's reading every word we write now & seething inside all the while.

2011-09-18 10:31:19
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Good!  :-)

2011-09-18 11:05:02Another button label suggestion...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

"Pielke's Petards"

2011-09-18 17:14:44
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

I think we need to follow through with the answers to his questions, to force him to respond to something.

There are pieces in the works already.

2011-09-18 21:29:09Something to notice in his most recent blog
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

"Despite my raising science issues in my first post, the moderators of Skeptical Science have persisted on focusing on the issue of ad homimem attacks that I discussed as part of my post. They assume I only am critical of “one side” of the debate.  However, anyone who uses derogatory name calling significantly weakens their presentation of whatever viewpoint they expouse. I agree that the topic “Al Gore is an idiot”  at Watts Up With That is a derogatory term and that section on the weblog should be relabeled.  Instead of moving on, however, the moderators and comments at Skeptical Science persist on focusing on this subject."

 

I didn't check to see if he made this admission during the comment exchange, but it's worth noticing now:

- He now has an shield against Dana's rebuttal when he responds to JC's note: If he says, "SkS shouldn't use snarky names", and we respond "Your buddy Watt called Al Gore an idiot in his labeling," he can now say, "Yes, but I've rejected that; so why is SkS still saying Christy is a Crock (full of shit)?"

It's all very convoluted by now, even to me. I guess what I'm saying: JC, in your note to Pielke, don't pin a lot of energy on demanding an apology for saying SkS is ad-hominizing: He's not going to apologize, and it could take the conversation to places we don't want to go.

It might make more sense to take advantage of his admission, by publicly noting that he has, in fact, disassociated himself from WUWT's insultling topic-label, and that SkS will drop the series on disinforming scientists when we stop seeing disinformation produced by them. (Something like that.)

2011-09-18 22:03:00
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Anthony is changing the Al Gore name:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/response-from-anthony-watts/

 

Hello Roger,
 
I’m changing the category tag for Al Gore, per your suggestion in your most recent weblog.
 
This tag started when Mr. Gore announced on National television (the Tonight Show) that  the Earth’s temperature  is “several million degrees” at “2 kilometers or so down”.  He also said the “crust of the earth is hot” too.
 
Reference: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/16/gore-has-no-clue-a-few-million-degrees-here-and-there-and-pretty-soon-were-talking-about-real-temperature/
 
For me, for Mr. Gore, who is looked to for valid opinions on science by millions of people, this was truly a moment of idiocy, and I thought the category label was deserved for that moment, especially since in the subsequent days, he made no attempt to correct that hugely erroneous statement.
 
But I agree, continued use of the category label is unwarranted and unfair, and from now on it will say simply “Al Gore”. The prior URL for previously tagged stories will no longer function. This is now the correct category URL:http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/al-gore/
 
Perhaps Skeptical Science will follow my lead and change their categories called “Christy Crocks” and “Spencer Slip Ups” to demonstrate that they follow their own complaints of unfair labeling with reciprocal actions.
 
You may include this with your weblog if you wish as an addendum/update.

2011-09-18 22:16:17
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Let's just refocus on the One-sided skepticism problem.  It was never about his attachment to Watts and 'Al Gore is an Idiot', it was about pielke's inability to criticize his BFF's and their testimony and statements and constant impuning of other scientists.  Saying something like

While we are glad to hear Pielke's disassiciation from Watt's 'idiot' category, but that was a mere side issue brought up in the comments.  The real issue as indicated by our response and updates is the John Christy's and Roy Spencer's statements in the two series he indicates he has issues with.  That is the skepticism we feel is important.  The constructive comunication style of SkS is another issue.  

Refocus the problem back to the truth of the matter!

2011-09-18 22:33:52Does it matter how the series' are named?
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.165.236

Here are just some random thoughts I have about the current titles:

  • are the titles more important than the content?
  • are we just talking about semantics?
  • could different interpretation from country to country of the words used - especially "crock" - be an issue (a word might be okay to be used in Australia, but it might have different meanings eg. in the US)?
  • would more people actually read the content if the titles were different?
  • should the buttons perhaps be moved below the thermometer to give the rebuttals more weight on the website?
  • we already have "Climate Myths from Politicians" could "Christy Crocks", "Spencer Slip Ups and "Lindzen Illusions" be collected under "Climate Myths from Scientists" (yes, I know, not as punchy as what we currently have!). 
  • how enarmored are we with the tongue-in-cheek current titles which apparently gets under the skin of humorless "skeptics"?
  • would we "lose face" and/or be seen as "giving-in" if the titles were changed?
2011-09-18 22:34:48
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

grypo,

I agree with your point, but I think it's interesting to see that WUWT is watching Pielke watching us. I think it is kind of a victory, to have WUWT back down from an ongoing insult to our most AGW-aware politician.

wrt the specifics: I'm not sure it makes sense to drop "Spencer Slip Ups", but I could lose "Christy Crocks" without regret. I've always thought it was rather crude. But certainly, we need to focus on the forward-looking issue: Is Pielke going to continue to provide cover when some of his buddies make arguments that are clearly in bad faith?

2011-09-18 22:41:10
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

wrt Baerbel's proposal:

I think it might be a good idea to drop the cute names, at least the cruder ones; but we can justify some of them, so I would not give up the less-inflamatory ones without a further concession from WUWT. Plus, of course, some statement by Pielke that he will no longer give bad-faith science his support.

2011-09-18 23:17:31
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

Isn't our main problem that he didn't bother to read our critiques but just sucked up to Spencer et al?

If you stay on topic and nail him into dealing with the criticism from our previous posts only. It's not a case of him not criticising them in the past, it's more him criticising our valid criticism...

2011-09-19 00:19:18A note
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

One can infer the deep level of behind-the-scenes communications going on between RPSr and AW.  AW would not have made the changes he did so quickly (or at all) solely based on the RPSr post.

Almost as if there is an anti-SkS Forum on the denier side...

2011-09-19 00:29:41
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

Pielke and Watt have written a paper together, so I'm sure they are in informal contact.

WUWT undoubtedly have a core group that consult to Watt.

Nothing surprising in that.

2011-09-19 00:34:20Framing our buttons...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Since the cores mission of SkS is to debunk climate denier "myths," why not change all the buttons to a straightforward:

Spencer's Myths, Lindzen's Myths, etc.

Repitition is, after all, a very powerful communications tool. 

2011-09-19 00:42:34Observation...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

One of our collective and individual tendancies is to write or say stuff that makes us feel good without fully thinking through how others might perceive us. The cutsey buttons is one such example. Our deluge of comments in response to Pielke is another. 

We all need to keep this tendency in mind as we move forward. Individual and collective reality checks are a must.

2011-09-19 00:51:28
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

JH,

I don't disagree with the idea of moving to a uniform format for labels. But I don't think we NEED to do it, except to lose the "C's Cs", which is kinda crude.

If we can make a case that we're willing to back down from our cutesy (but non-offensive) labels in return for WUWT backing off of one of their offensive actions (like? I don't know, I don't read them), then it's really a two-fer: We get WUWT to tone down, and we fall back to a uniform format (which really doesn't hurt us; but we don't tell them that).

2011-09-19 00:54:19crocks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125
Personally I'd prefer not to change the series name for a few reasons. One, there's nothing wrong with it. We're not calling Christy a crock, we're calling his myths and misinformation crocks. Watts called Gore an idiot. They are very different situations. Watts changing his far worse category doesn't require us to change ours. Secondly, it would be a fair amount of work. Coming up with a new name, new button, replacing all the buttons and titles in the 7 or 8 CC posts, etc. Just a pain in the butt. Thirdly, it cedes the point to Pielke when he's in the wrong for ignoring the content of the series. It's not a big sticking point for me, but I'm against changing it. I think we should just defend it again if Pielke brings it up again, and use the opportunity to put him on the defensive for continuing to turn a blind eye to Christy's behavior.
2011-09-19 00:58:21Time to let...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

the Grand Poobah play Solomon re the "Christy Crocks" button. 

2011-09-19 01:01:56
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

dana,

You can say we're not specifically calling Christy a crock, but the immediate association with the phrase "crock of shit" is undeniably strong. I know that if someone said "Neal's calculation is wrong", I would be concerned and maybe annoyed, depending on the tone; if someone said "Neal's calculation is a crock of shit", I would be very very offended.

It doesn't sound good, it doesn't look good. This IS a PR war: How we come across is a valid part of the message. If even WUWT (those savages!) are willing to back down from chewing Gore's backside, we should be willing to sound less juvenile.

2011-09-19 02:01:08
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Not a big deal, but the word is circling the more reality-challenged blogs.  Bishop Hill "horrific" and Shub N - "Kafkaesque", you gotta love that.

 

Hopefully, more centered people will come to the thread and see that Pielke was given special treatment, and simply asked to stay on topic.

2011-09-19 02:14:02
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

When I look at the record, one thing that I see is that many people are hitting Pielke on the same points, over and over again.

On the one hand, he is not answering; but on the other hand, it certainly seems like a piling-on. It doesn't look good.

As I've said before, an orderly presentation of our points plays much better to our strengths than this kind of free-fire comment-fest; and doesn't look like a ganging-up.

2011-09-19 02:23:56For what it's worth...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I concur with Neal. 

In addition, some SkS readrs and supporters have expressed consternation over the connotations embedded in the "Christy Crocks" label.

If we do not change this label, we'll be constantly explaining why it isn't offensive and the climate deniers will be constantly carping about it.  

2011-09-19 02:27:32
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

I posted a comment at the second site grypo, apparently they have no problem with equating us with the Nazi SS but take huge offense to us enforcing our comments policy and calling the series "Christy Crocks" - yeah, the *possible* implication of "crock of shit" and explicit "murderers" sure are on equal planes all right.

I'm probably not going to post again, the discussion there is definitely reality-challenged...

2011-09-19 02:29:27But to not cause confusion...
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

I concur with JH on changing the name, and think that as a matter of taste we should adjust the intro to the Spencer series too.  Nobody has brought it up, but if we're going to do some house cleaning then we should start scrubbing all smudges.

2011-09-19 02:32:29
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crock_%28slang%29

There is apparently a direct connection to a 'crock of shit' in American slang.

To be honest, I don't think crock is used much in the UK although I have heard of it.

2011-09-19 02:35:26
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

I wonder if Peter Sinclair has come under similar criticism for his "crock of the week" series.

2011-09-19 02:37:23
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Yes, the American connotation is indeed a "crock of shit".  But that is what Christy is full of and guilty of committing.

It is calling a spade a spade.

2011-09-19 02:41:11
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

Paul:

In the article you linked, I see two definitions of interest:

1: "A crock is a botched attempt or design to achieve something, particularly in engineering. An automobile with intentionally designed square wheels would be a crock. Crock itself is a slang word, meaning something which is broken down, worn out[1] or nonsense."

2: "According to the Jargon File, the use of the word "crock" as engineering jargon is connected to its use for dishware by the American scatologism crock of shit, for more extreme examples of what would otherwise be known as bullshit.[2]"

As an American, involved in electrical engineering, I am not familiar with usage 1 at all. My immediate connection is to the full phrase mentioned in usage 2.

2011-09-19 02:42:58
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

Dan,

We are also not writing just to please ourselves, but to make an impact.

Use of inappropriate language can make an impact that is different from the one we want to make.

2011-09-19 02:55:50
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Maybe as a minor capituation we could add a link to a note below the buttons with wording like this:  "While we acknowledge that the scientists (and others) who are the subject of these series are fully capable of producing quality work that contributes to advancing our knowledge of climate science, our purpose is to point out the propogation of misinformation and bad science.  This is not an attack on the people themselves but on the inaccuracies they are propogating."

Watts was perfectly just in calling Gore out for his mistake saying the core of the Earth was "millions of degrees."  I've seen the video of Gore saying it.  He just got it wrong.  But Watts turned it into an attack on the person rather than an attack on the wrong information.  That is clearly NOT what we do here at SkS.  We attack the inaccurate information.  

I'm glad Watts made the adjustment to his site but that doesn't mean that our site contains attacks on those people.

2011-09-19 03:04:22
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

Rob:

That sounds weak to me. If we have to apologize for it, we just shouldn't do it.

Given the very strong associations, the title "Christy's Crocks" is, in itself, an attack on the personal dignity of Christy.

The others: not so much. In fact, I'm still rooting for "Lindzen's Legerdemain"', as long as we're in the alliteration mode.

Or we could "elevate" the tone and drop the alliterative titles; lose a bit in humor.

My vote is:

a) We drop the CC in explicit exchange for WUWT's dropping of the idiot;

b) We leave the rest, unless we can get WUWT or Pielke to do something for us; and then if that happens, move them all to "X's myths".

2011-09-19 03:28:25
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

I would suggest against taking hostages.  Don't tie the WUWT title to it as a requirement, take the high road and then strongly hint at what they should do too.

2011-09-19 03:36:14A crock by any other name
muoncounter
Dan Friedman
dfriedman3@comcast...
76.30.158.238

So anyone using a crockpot to cook their dinner had better check the ingredients?

 

Yes, there's a connotation.  But how is that equivalent to 'idiot'?  No ambiguity there.  This is false equivalence; a losing game.  This happened before: see the 'bubkes' incident (bubkes-gate?).  For those not familiar with this term, it is of Yiddish origin - and that language is full of very colorful curse words.

 

I can understand the desire to be nice, but we're in a shark tank here.

2011-09-19 03:34:54
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I'm fully confident that Christy does a lot of good work.  I, personally, don't see the title "Christy's crocks" as "Christy is a Crock", as Watts statement that "Gore is an idiot."  I see the title meaning "the Crocks that belong to Christy."  "Crocks" are the subject, not Christy.  In Watts' statement Gore was the subject. It's "Christy's" with an apostrophe S, a possessive.  It's an important grammatical difference.

Maybe it's a nuanced point but I think it's valid.  I also think the alliterative element to these is important to making them "sticky."

Think about this...  If we capitulation to removing our condemnation element of the subject (Crocks, Myths, Illusions) because Anthony removed his condemnation of his subject, the person, Al Gore, then he wins.

2011-09-19 03:35:58neal
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Point taken.

2011-09-19 03:39:14
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

Alex:

The claim is that WUWT have already made the change, so no need for hostages: just respond in kind.

And then look around for some change we might want them to make, to reduce the polarization. Probably ought to do that right away; although I'm not suggesting that we offer to make a uniform change, there's a good chance that they will ask for that. So if we have a trade ready to put on the table, we won't have to leave everything hanging, like we can't make our minds up.

Is anybody familiar with the WUWT site, who could suggest a civilizing change? Just to have in our back pocket?

2011-09-19 03:39:48
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Watts very easily could have titled his post "Al Gore's idiocy" and I would have had no problem with that.  It really was an idiotic mistake, the kind of mistake that anyone is capable of making.  But it was the remark that was idiotic, not Gore.  Gore is a perfect intelligent person capable of doing good work.  Watts' chose to make an ad hom attack on Gore.  We are NOT making ad hom attacks with this series.  We are attacking the Crocks and Myths that those individuals are propogating.

2011-09-19 03:46:58
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Instead of changing anything I would be more in favor of clarifying somehow that we are NOT attacking the people.  The subject of these posts are an attack on the misinformation that is getting propagated.  The subject is not the people themselves.

2011-09-19 03:48:34
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I vote we offer to change the series title on the condition that Pielke admit that Christy misinformed our policymakers in testimony before US Congress.  Put the ball back in his court.

Remember there's a benefit to these series titles - people are more likely to remember catchy names.  It's another effective communications tool.  So we should try to think of another catchy name that could replace Crocks. 

"Christy's Mythsteries", as in it's a mystery why he propagates so many myths?

Or, we've got Carter Confusion I think but we could do "Christy Confuses", since he's misinforming people.

2011-09-19 03:51:54
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I just noticed that we DON'T have these set up as possessives.  It's "Christy Crock" and "Lindzen Illusions" etc.

I suggest just making them all possessive to clarify the intent.

2011-09-19 03:53:53Watts ad hominem continues
muoncounter
Dan Friedman
dfriedman3@comcast...
76.30.158.238

This was easy.  Just sear ch the phrase 'Al Gore is an idiot'

 

Then go look at Watt$' 'Gore-a-thon' post (about the climate reality series), in which Gore is portrayed as a liar and a fool.  With that kind of continuing message, if Watt$ thinks taking one word out of a category somehow alters his message, he's a crock.  A crock of bubkes, that is.

2011-09-19 03:55:22
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Dana...  If we could get Pielke to make that kind of statement it would be HUGE!!  I wouldn't expect him to go that far but he might slip up and do it.  Giving away the stickiness of the series titles would be a small price if we could get him to make such a statement.  But let's just not pull an Obama and give away far more than we get out of this.

2011-09-19 03:57:12
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

muoncounter...  Exactly.  If Pielke or anyone else thinks that suddenly Watts is going to change his ways regarding his ad homs on Gore they're living in an alternate reality.

2011-09-19 04:01:27
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

OH, read this:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/response-from-anthony-watts/

From Watts:

"Hello Roger,
 
I’m changing the category tag for Al Gore, per your suggestion in your most recent weblog."

Haven't read the rest yet, just thought you'd ought to know.  Maybe there's a conditional later, don't know.

2011-09-19 04:02:05
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

Edit: Gosh, nevermind my late arrival with that.  Point acknowledged Neal.

2011-09-19 04:03:36
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

- I think we should get rid of the CC because: a) it's inherently offensive, and b) it's hurting us. The only reason Watt asks us to change it is because he doesn't think we will, and he can say, "Ha ha, those SkS guys have no couth!"

If it were changed along the lines dana suggest (but I would say "Christy's Myth-series") that would get rid of the offense but leave the humor.

But I think the exchange now is already fair: WUWT has made the first move; we can take him up on it and surprise him.

I would suggest that we hold back on pressurizing Pielke for two reasons:

- We might already be able to get him to admit that there was a problem with the testimony: Once we have it pinned down in a clean channel (not a comment-fest), we may be in a better position to do that. After all, he did voluntarily state that WUWT's insult to Gore was a bit out-of-line.

- Failing this Damascene conversion, we could make that be the condition for a uniform name change.

2011-09-19 04:07:52
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

Actually I like Neal's suggestion of "X's myths."

 

Edit: Hm, actually I'll retract that.  Though yes, CC should be changed.

2011-09-19 04:10:35
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Neal...  I think we're potentially giving away a key element of this site, something that could have a clear impact on the site, for something that is unlikely to change WUWT at all.  It wouldn't even register as a blip over there.

I think it would be appropriate to take the high road and clarify that it's not the people we are attacking but the crocks themselves.  We take the high road but keep all important elements of the website.

2011-09-19 04:12:55
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

muoncounter:

We can't really expect WUWT to change their opinion of what Gore is about. Changing the title is just a matter of civility.

After all, we're not going to change our opinion of what Christy et al. are about - until they change.

2011-09-19 04:24:21
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

Rob:

- With the CC, I believe we are already hurting ourselves; so to change that to something non-offensive, in exchange for WUWT dropping the attack on Gore, is a two-fer: We're doing something that improves our own image, while keeping up with WUWT on the high road.

- I am not suggesting making the change uniformly, for all other mythmakers, at this time. If Pielke asks about that, then your explanation could be used. But if we're still using CC at that time, it won't be very credible.

2011-09-19 05:08:57
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Neal...  I think you're over estimating any damage that the term might be causing us.  So, what we are ending up doing is trading Watts' attack on his subject (Al Gore) for our attack on our subject (the crocks).

I'm just saying it's not a fair trade.

The Gore-a-thon post on WUWT is perfect evidence that this is an utterly meaningless action on Anthony's part.

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

I think we should hold off on any change and keep it in our back pocket as a negotiating chip.  It will take a while to implement any change anyway - we first need to agree on a new name (perhaps "Christy's Myth-steries"?  I think Myth-series is too subtle.  I still rather like "Mythsteries").

Let's see how the discussion progresses.  If Pielke still refuses to acknowledge any fault by Spencer and Christy, and if he harps on Christy Crocks, then we can use the name change as the bargaining chip in the way I suggested.  Otherwise we can use it elsewhere.  There's no reason to give up the bargaining chip right now.

2011-09-19 07:09:09Bob Asprin channeling time
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Christy Myth-ticisms

Christy Myth-takes

Christy Myth-representations

Christy Myth-stories

2011-09-19 07:22:05My opinion
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Re renaming the "Christy Crock" button, we should do what is right for SkS -- period!

We should not "negotiate" with Pielke under any circumstances. He's selling snake oil and nothing we do will cause him to stop.

We are not playing a game of chess with Pielke.

Make a decision about the damn butrton and get on with it!

2011-09-19 07:38:02
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I suggested Mythsteries because it rhymes with Christy's.

2011-09-19 08:10:11
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Don't negotiate, just do it, admit it was offensive, but don't grovel. As a replacement, "Christy Criticisms" would be tone neutral, if a little dull. The other names aren't as offensive (slip-ups. myths and we should stick to them.

We can be more personally engaged and more offensive as individuals (particularly when we post or comment under our real names) but "Christy Crocks" reflects poorly on the whole site. Expect some crowing from Watts but it would be worse if we stonewalled on this, endured some badgering by Watts and then changed it later.

We have to realize that the people we are dealing with are what Arthur Koestler referred to as "mimophants" (he was referring to the chess genius Bobby Fischer) meaning people who are as sensitve as mimosas when it comes to their feelings but as insensitive as elephants when they trample over other people. It's a pain to deal with people like that but those are the opponents we have. They look like victimized heroes to their supporters but neutral observers consider them to be crybabies. Just consider the way they critcize our side for genocide but squeal when they perceive an insult because of a supposed lnk between denier and Holocaust denier.

Remember, we're not answering to Pielke or Watts in their self-appointed roles as prosecuting attorneys, we're addressing a jury of people who haven't yet made up their minds.

2011-09-19 08:20:52
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I don't like Christy Criticisms.  That makes it about Christy, not the misinformation.

And I disagree that Christy Crocks is offensive.  Some people are fine with it, some people don't like it, but few are offended by it.  The term "that's a crock" is not uncommon (well, maybe now because it's old-fashioned), and not generally considered offensive in the least.  The series has been up for how many months?  And nobody has said a word about the name as far as I've seen.

Like I said, it will take time to implement any change, and there's no rush anyway.  In the meantime, if we can use the change to pressure Pielke in a way that's to our advantage, we should do it.

2011-09-19 08:27:05
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.26.160

Are we getting redundant with Monckton Myths?

2011-09-19 09:04:49
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

- Frankly, I've always hated "Christy's Crocks", it sounds disgusting; and at least two or three friendly commentators in that session also recommended taking it down, as unbecoming to the dignity of our site. If it were my decision, I'd take it down even if Watts hadn't said a thing about changing the label on Gore's file. It's a net negative.

- With respect to "Christy's Mythsteries": I think it's almost impossible to pronounce. The "th-s-t" combination I find a lot harder than "th-s".

2011-09-19 14:03:55
adelady

amgnificent@gmail...
124.171.77.143

I don't understand all the fuss about the word 'crock'. 

Surely everyone in the area regularly checks out "Crock of the Week".  AFAICT Sinclair is American and he uses the word in exactly the same way it's used here. 

2011-09-19 14:07:31
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.26.160

Yes, he lives in Midland, MI.  I thought of this too myself, I have not heard of Peter getting hassle for his series as of yet.  In either case we ourselves have gotted called out on it - whether or not we even mean it as "crock of shit" or as Peter's "Crock of the Week," it's a PR target for deniers (and prominent "skeptics") to aim at.

2011-09-19 14:13:21
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.245.243

Christy=crocks, ain't that sticky messaging?

2011-09-19 14:33:13messaging
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Yeah the sticky messaging is the benefit of the current name.  I made that point earlier, but as long as we can come up with an equally sticky name, changing is no big deal.  And it's true that a few of our own readers have said they don't like Crocks.

I discussed it with John, who suggested that if we change, we can do it with big fanfare and make it an opportunity to once again highlight Christy's long history of myths and misinformation.  Take advantage, make it backfire on the "skeptics".  Also, John really likes "Christy's Mythsteries", so I'm not the only one! :-)

2011-09-19 14:53:28
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

You know, Christy's Mythsteries is growning on me (sorry Neal, or sorry to Neal's tongue).  I almost think the inpronouncability of it is what makes it sticky.  

I was almost going to suggest dropping the S making it Mythteries (almost like a lisp) to make it more pronouncable but I like it less that way.  

2011-09-19 14:56:36
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Andy s... "Don't negotiate, just do it, admit it was offensive..."   Don't even admit anything.   

2011-09-19 16:55:01
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.57.69

May as well indicate that it's a response to WUWT, because they're going to notice and claim that anyway.

2011-09-19 18:19:20
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

There are cultural differences highlighted here.

I don't have a major problem with Crocks, mainly because the word isn't particular discusting in the majority of cultures (including, I suspect, translations). Any offense I suspect is mainly via American commentators. So there are two interesting POV now that it has been used:

1. Was the original intent to offend Americans?

2. Should it be changed because some Americans sensitivities are offended?

2011-09-19 18:22:15
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
88.108.224.131

I agree with Neal and Andy S that "Christy Crocks" is all a bit unnecessary; there will be some in the intended audience that will also see it that way and wonder why SkS should feel the need for the "messaging" if Christy's arguments really are that bad.  So i would recommend changing it.

I also don't see the problem in admitting things.  Prof. Pielke has made himself look very silly by not admitting when he is wrong (e.g. by claiming that WUWT don't have series/cetegories with insulting titles, but not admitting he was wrong when I pointed out the "Al Gore is an idiot" catgory).  It just make you look one-sided and disingenuous.  While not admitting may have tactical advantages, I believe it would be a strategic mistake.

I have no real problem with "Spencer Slip-ups", we all make mistakes and it is deeply unscientific to get shirty about it.  The correct response is to engage with the criticisms.

"Christy Corrections" ?

2011-09-19 18:25:31
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
88.108.224.131

Paul D - for reference I am British and "Crock" commonly means "crock of s**t" here as well as the states.

2011-09-19 18:27:12
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I actually have a problem with the graphics used as buttons. They aren't very readable or accessible IMO.
I'm not to keen on the design of them either.

2011-09-19 18:28:39
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Dikran it is to my knowledge rarely used in the UK. I think Brits are probably more explicit! :-) Although not in print.

2011-09-19 18:38:34
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

synonyms:

Christys Contortions

Christys Canards

2011-09-19 18:49:05
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.57.69

Dikran:

"Christy Corrections" puts the emphasis on the fix. This is a bit different than the other titles, which put the emphasis on the flaw.

 

Paul:

Americans are not our complete or only audience, but they are certainly an important component of our audience. Why should we needlessly offend our readers?

 

Rob H:

If something is more or less obvious (as when WUWT asks us to do something, and we do it), it's pointless and graceless to say it was unrelated: No one will believe you anyway. I don't think it has to be a "climb down": We can say that we heard about WUWT's action, had an internal discussion, and decided we didn't like the name that much anyway.

And I understand WUWT wants to extend this to a replacement of "Spencer's Slip-Ups"? I'm afraid that's another story. When the shoe stops fitting ...

 

Rob P:

"Christy=crocks, ain't that sticky messaging?"

Yeah, sticky but icky!

 

adelady:

I don't know about "Crock of the Week", I've never been interested in looking at it. Maybe something about the name ...

2011-09-20 05:21:05
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I think if/when we make the change, we just say Pielke raised the issue and some of our readers expressed displeasure with the title, so we changed it.  To me the WUWT change has nothing to do with it.  The site is still chalk full of ad hominems, including towards Al Gore.  Plus their category actually was an ad hominem.  I don't think we need to talk about WUWT at all.

2011-09-20 06:05:12
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

Yes, Anthony changed ONE ad hominem, only a million or so more to go ;)  But yes, leave WFUWT out of this.

I like "Christy Corrections", not as much as "crocks", but it does speak to the fact that SkS is setting the record straight and correction misinformation.  But some might think that it means that we think that we know better, but said people woudl probably argue that the sky is not blue.  Anyways, changing it would be manning up to the fact that is was probably over the line (we expect them to do it, so we should do same), and is also extending an olive branch.

Spencer's Speculations? He speculates that there is a strong negative cloud feedback, he speculates that most of the recent warming is natural, that climate sensitivity is low.  But I suppose they could stake issue with that too, as "speculation" has some negative connotations.  Anyhow, just throwing that out there.

PS: Someone suggested that we will agree to chgange the button name when Chrsity retracts his crocks ;)

2011-09-20 06:13:02
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.57.69

"Christy's Cuckoos"; as explained on a different thread.

2011-09-20 06:25:10
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Form another thread.  

Me:

"....Or we could just rename the whole damnned series "Spencer's corrections", "Christy's corrections"etc.  the readers have some ideas too.  Maybe we could have a competition.  Identify 5 or ten and then people can vote.  That way they cannot pin the result on John or SkS."