2011-09-19 22:55:29'Skeptic' Tone trolling
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

I'm just starting a placeholder thread to keep track of the tone trolling in regards to the Pielke kurfuffle.  So far we have Shub and his silly post.  Then there is Bishop Hill just linking and giving his own adjectives.  Now Watts is at it, which is only signififcant because he gets web hits.

 

2011-09-19 23:02:53
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.57.69

Is there some reason we don't post our answers to Pielke's Q1 - Q6 questions? I believe the work is all done.

2011-09-19 23:12:10
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

I don't see why not.  I think we need to wait for Dana to logon.

 

As an aside, if we really want to stick it to people like Watts, we could invite Pielke Sr. to do a guest post on his newest work involving land use and the need for deeper assesment on regions that need to factor this into adaption plans.  Or if someone is knowledgable enough in it, we could do a summary.  i don't see any issue with it.  i believe his ideas will work well along mitigation strategies.  We need to do this kind of thing anyway.

 

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/new-paper-land-useland-cover-changes-and-climate-modeling-analysis-and-observational-evidence-by-pielke-sr-et-al-2011/

2011-09-19 23:24:48
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.26.160

From WUWT:

>>>Strikeout of opposing commentary, especially that of a professional scientist writing something that doesn’t even appear inflammatory or off topic (since he’s responding to another commenter), is so “grade school”

WTF?  Badgersouth was responded to himself about being off topic, as were several other posters.  What crockery (HA!).

2011-09-19 23:58:26
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

I know I'm going way off topic on my own post, but re: Pielke's interesting work, here are his recommendations after putting forth his study:

LULCC also has a profound impact on the regional-scale surface energy, trace gas andaerosol, and water balance. Where LULCC has been intensive, the regional impact is likely, ingeneral, to be at least as important as greenhouse gas and aerosol forcings.62 The fact that theimpact of LULCC is small with respect to the global average radiative forcing, with the exceptionof LULCC related emissions of CO2, is not a relevant metric as the essential resources of food,water, energy, human health, and ecosystem function respond to regional and local climate, notto a global average. Human vulnerability to forcings such as climate change is realized locallyand regionally and the conclusion that LULCC is a significant regional-scale driver of climate issufficient to require its incorporation into past, present, and future climate model simulations.With LULCC increasingly forming part of climate change mitigation strategies, the widereffects of LULCC on climate over and above carbon emissions/uptake need to be consideredwith appropriate metrics which go beyond the simple radiative-forcing based metrics such asGlobal Warming Potentials .160 Moreover, consideration of LULCC effects is increasinglyimportant as the requirement to adapt to ongoing climate change and variability is rising rapidlyon the international policy agenda as well as growing in the awareness of other actors such asindustry, local government, and individuals.161

 

I actually agree with this, and I don't know anyone in mainstream science who wouldn't.  I also think it will be good for SkS's image to help get out this message.  win-win?

2011-09-20 00:09:48Perhaps
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.26.160

Not to give an opinion one way or another, but this would go quite against the tone we are about to set with publishing the Cherry Pielke-ing series (which is albeit not going to start for a while).

2011-09-20 00:13:18grypo
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I second your proposal to invite Pielke to do a guest post on SkS -- provided that we get to review it in draft form beofre it is posted.  

2011-09-20 00:15:03
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

We would need to explicitly state that there are some things we agree on are within consensus thought and some we don't that's just not.  i don't think Pielke really "needs" a series.  But we do need to counter his "OHC is all the matters" and "NO delayed warming" etc claims that are clearly well outside the mainstream, depending on how these myths are framed.

2011-09-20 00:18:34Re Badergersouth's deleted comments on Dana's article...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

they were brilliant!

2011-09-20 01:00:37Don't want to sound like a broken record ...
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.57.69

But these are all very good reasons to GO SLOW on publishing snippy articles critical of Pielke: Our goal is not to "get Pielke" (or any of these guys), but to "get the bad science": If that entails slowly convincing some of these guys that their easiest path to fame & glory is to embrace facts that everybody believes, by helping them gain some visibility for their own hobby horses that ALSO happen to be what everyone else believes (or can believe), that's FINE: It doesn't hurt us. In this region of science-space, we don't have to play a zero-sum game: We can play a win/win, as grypo said.

But an important part of negotiating this is to not piss people off right away. One of the Robs (P or H) dismissed this concern on another thread, saying "Pielke's a big boy." I got news for ya, Rob: Big boys have started bloody real wars for less. We should never underestimate the ability of an intelligent knowledgeable experiened individual to act like a three-year old: I think we can all admit that we've each done it ourselves (and at above the age of 3).

I'm not saying stop working. But I am urging that we think very carefully when we go through the process of releasing these "denier denunciations", because we don't want to chop off a branch we might need. I think it's a safe bet that publication of a button or an article with the title "Cherry Pielke-ing" will burn the seed of any chance to get cooperation (even of mutual benefit) with Pielke; so let's be very sure that there is NO hope of that before we undertake such an irreversible step. It would be taken as an "act of war"; and, as Churchill once said, "Jaw jaw is better than war war."

2011-09-20 01:25:20naljking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I concur with you completely.

  

2011-09-20 01:45:19
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Sorry guys but it's Monday morning and I've only had one cup of coffee...  What is LULCC?

2011-09-20 01:57:35
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Neal...  I agree with you on the go-slow approach.  And that was me who make the "big boy" comment.

I gotta tell you, I've been in the business world for over 20 years.  I've negotiated lots of contracts, stock deals, compensation packages, dealt with competitor issues, blah-blah-blah...  If there is one thing I've learned in those years it's you can't worry too much about the other guy's feelings.  If you do you end up losing THEIR respect and you make yourself more vulnerable to being walked over.  I would say more wars have been started as a result in one side putting up a weak response to an over-zealous opponent.

These guys, in a sense, are only playing the science game in name only.  They are clearly dancing on the fringes.  Spencer waltzs right out of science and on into politics.  DO NOT think for one minute these guys need to be coddled.  

There are ways to be strategic about how to approach all these things, but I would have no hesitation for calling a spade a spade when we see it... even if someone of the likes of Pielke gets uncomfortable about it.

2011-09-20 02:24:18
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.57.69

Rob,

Calling a spade a spade is one thing; ridicule based on someone's name is something else. When I'm dealing/arguing with people in standards meetings, I expect them to use clear and direct language; to use pretty decent technical arguments (some of which will have to be unpackaged for duds); and maybe to use sharp humor. I do not expect them to stoop to personal insult, and I definitely think the less of them for doing so, even if it's not applied against me at the time.

Pielke has made it amply clear that he is very sensitive to this point, even when applied against his friends & colleagues, so it stands to reason that he will be even more touchy about it being applied against him.

That said, there is always a time and setting for every weapon: I am not saying that one should never use ridicule: We are, after all, talking about people who are arguing in very bad faith to attain political ends. However:

- In the case of Pielke, it seems clear to me that if have ANY hope of diverting him from his path of destruction into a win/win scenario, we will absolutely kill that hope by ridiculing him in this way before we have tested this possibility. At some point and at some level, it ceases to be "just business" and you make real enemies. This is not productive. In standardization work, we are always trying to "do in" our competitors, but different ones on different topics, and we like to be able to have a glass of wine or beer after the sessions: It's cut-throat, but not personal. When it starts getting personal, usually you find that the situation is awkward, because you CAN'T make deals/compromises that are to your mutual advantage, because you hate each other. This don't work too good.

- In the case of Christy, as I've said over and over again, I think the use of the term "crock" is over the top - not because it offends me (although it does) but because it causes even some of our friendly readers to wonder why we're stooping to that level. So what do neutral visitors think about it? How does this reaction help SkS?

2011-09-20 02:31:47Rob Honeycutt
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

We are not negotiating a contract with Pielke.

Once we launch a missle, we cannot retrieve it.

The more missles we launch, the more SkS becomes "Climate-Progress Lite."

2011-09-20 03:23:51
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

SkS has an audience, they are what matters. In particular the audience that SkS hasn't captured yet.

IMO there is to much talk about 'competitors' (Pielke, other bloggers etc) and not enough about the audience.

The vast number of people that visit this site and interested in characters and their blogs, they are far to busy do other things.

2011-09-20 03:26:22
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Rob,

NO worries got me too. It refers tro another of Pielke's pet interests, land-use change.  Specifically, "land use/land cover changes on the climate system (LULCC) ".  He has just had a paper pubished on it.

On this I agree with Pielke, but it is in terms of the nuances of the climate models and climate change.  IIRC, the radiative forcing changes brought about by land use change are dwarfed by the radiative forcing from GHGs.

2011-09-20 03:29:29
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Shubbie hangs out with Montford, what else is there to say.  These are folks who start  foaming at the mouth when you mention Michael Mann's name.

Paul D makes a very good point about the audience @20 Sep 2011, 3:23 AM.  Let us try and ignore the chatter and blog flame wars and focus on informing and empowering people on AGW after this Pielke tiff has blown over.

2011-09-20 03:30:10
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.57.69

Paul,

I'm not exactly sure of what you're saying. However, Pielke has his readers; and when he responds to one of our posts (and especially when he gives the link), his readers are likely to become our visitors. If we seem to be reasonable and put up a "good story", some fraction of them may come back and become members of our audience. If we come across as jerks, probably not.

2011-09-20 03:34:42
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Good thoughts Neal @20 Sep 2011, 2:24 AM and at 20 Sep 2011, 1:00 AM -- I largely agree.  Must resist the urge of knee-jerk reactions.  I am obviously not good at that, but I do try believe it or not.

Let us see how this goes, if Pielke is largely constructive and does not reosrt to more cherry picking, we'll let the thread run its course, but if he continues to cherry pick, then I suggest a follow up article about his cherry picking the satellite data, Arctic sea ice data and sea level data.  Just so that people know that this is habitual, wrong, and not scientific.

2011-09-20 03:42:09
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.57.69

Sure, if we don't get anywhere with the gentle approach, we'll be forced to use ... other methods.

2011-09-20 03:54:37
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

That's the idea.  We're not going to launch a Cherry Pielke-ing series until we've determine that direct dialogue with him isn't going anywhere.

Regarding our responses to his Qs, I think they're just about ready.  We should plan on posting them tomorrow - give John's blimp post a day in the sun.  I've also posted two suggested questions to be directed back at Pielke in the same thread so that he's not totally dictating the discourse.  Those need some feedback too.

2011-09-20 05:09:20
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Neal

I'm not exactly sure of what you're saying.

Albatross understood, it isn't rocket science.

2011-09-20 05:25:28
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.57.69

Paul,

What I was saying was that I couldn't understand what you were saying.

Alby seemed to understand me, ask him.

2011-09-20 06:22:29
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hello Paul and Neal,

Does this mean that I have been assigned the task of mediator? ;)

I think that we are all suffering from Pielke fatigue.  I had to force myself to stay away from the forum yesterday, and have yet to do a stitch of real work (again) today.  I suspect that many of us here are in the same boat, and as a result feeling a little cranky.  Perefectly understandable.

Paul what I said is that I think that after this Pielke kerfuffle has passed we can focus on what we do best, and hopefully it will soon pass, we can get back on track.  At the same time though, if Pielke starts to cherry-pick and obfuscate and not play nice, then I have no problem with us calling him on his blatant and repeated cherry picking.  Him cherry-picking is akin to scientific misconduct in my books and someone in his position knows better.  But for now, I'm willing to hold of on doing that.

I also want to state for the record that I do not like "Cherry Pielk-ing" it is too abrasive and while funny it is humour at his expense.  Rightly or wrongly that will just give him a and others reason to say that we are tacking the person and not the science) and some readers of SkS (in truth there seems a split) have said that they do not like the tone set by the names of the buttons.  Finding a neam that they accept is neigh impossible, but at least have them work hard to try and claim it is offensive.

I'm not saying "Pielke's Picks" is the best, but IMHO it is more neutral and less confrontational.   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.

2011-09-20 06:28:48
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.57.69

Alby,

I'm with you in spirit, but have to remark that I don't think we would want "X's corrections" but rather "corrections to X": We are not laying out corrections X has made, but corrections to things X has done.

2011-09-20 06:31:48
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Again, the benefit of the series titles is that they're memorable ("sticky").  People won't remember "Corrections to Pielke" - that's a snooze fest of a name.  People will remember Cherry Pielke-ing.  Plus the name on its own gets across the point that Pielke is a serial cherrypicker.

2011-09-20 06:37:56
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.57.69

Dana,

Well, I'll hardly argue with "Cherry Pielke-ing", given its geneology (;-)

2011-09-20 07:04:15Bridge building with Pielke
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Call me a skeptic but the idea of trying to build bridges and constructive dialogue with Pielke sounds to me like a complete waste of time. I believe Judith Curry may have started with good intentions, trying to build bridges with the skeptic community, and it ended up a complete train wreck. There simply is no constructive conversation to be had with climate deniers. They are firmly fixed in their views and presenting counter evidence to them, no matter how politely presented, will only lead to a firming up of their views. Pielke has demonstrated his climate denial - denying atmospheric warming, denying Arctic sea ice melt, denying ocean warming. He's demonstrated attitude bolstering and disinformation bias whenever we try to point out the misinformation of his colleagues. He's a firm idealogue and while he tone trolls and urges scientific civility, that's merely a cloak for his denial.

I'm not saying don't try. Occasionally, an ideologue turns from the dark side (in a lab experiment, 2% consciously changed their views so it's small but real). The rarity of accepting facts counter to ideology means it's that more significant when it happens. But I always adopt the mindset when conversing with a denier, "this person is not going to be persuaded by my facts". That affects how I approach the dialogue (writing for the audience, not for the denier) and also enables me to remain calm and dispassionate because I'm at peace with the fact that my arguments will be ignored by them.

So our goal should be as always to write for the undecided majority. That's our "target audience". The whole "Christy Crocks" issue will not be decided by whether deniers get angry by it (on the contrary, the fact that they get so angry about it is a big factor in me wanting to keep it as it is). The only factor is whether "Christy Crocks" alienates undecideds.

2011-09-20 07:05:15
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Neal and Dana,

Rob Painting has suggested "Pielke's Cherrypicks".  I say that is perfect, it speaks directly to what he does, it does not make fun of him or fool around with his name. 

Good point Neal, damn apaostrophes.  Thanks for pointing that out. That is of course not what I meant-- but I think, despite my abuse of the apostrophe your understand where I am coming from.  Yes, we are correcting the misinformation.

2011-09-20 07:10:41
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.57.221

Nealstradamus - Rob H said Pielke was a big boy, not me.

Alby - I agree with you, "Cherry Pielke-ing" is going to look bad after our exchanges with him. That's why I've suggested "Pielke's cherrypicks" in another thread. Conveys the message without being at Pielke's expense.    

2011-09-20 07:11:42
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.57.221

Alby - snap!!!!

2011-09-20 07:12:57
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.57.69

A: I am fine with "P's Cs"

 

JC: My reading of Judith Curry is that she lost her moral compass and went aground on the rocks. But I think that a sincere effort at open dialogue is still educational for the readers, however lost it may be on the interlocutor.

2011-09-20 07:13:39
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

John,

Right now I am more interested in appeasing the SkS readers and not fannig the flames than I aabout giving a rat's arse what Roger thinks.  And yes, you are probably right, engaging Roger will ll likelighood be in a dead end road-- but let us enlighten people along the way and expose his game....but as nicely as possible!  I think it owuld be OK for Romm or someone to stoke the fires (it is sooo easy to wind them up), but I don't think that is SkS's mandate is it?

You have described Roger to a "T", but I think we need to try and take the high road here.

Some people posting at SkS have expressed their discomfort with "Christy's crocks" title, others say that they do not give a damn.  But I think it best to err on the side of caution.  If reasonable people who post at SkS are feeling uncomfortable or squirm a little at the site of that label, then they are propbably our best benchmark. IIRC, even Joe Romm expressed some discomfort at the names used in the series.

My two cents worth.

2011-09-20 07:40:46
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I think the discussion with Pielke is a win for us either way.  Either he actually makes reasonable statements (highly unlilkey, as John notes), or he resorts to his usual cherrypicking nonsense.  In the latter case, we expose him as a serial cherrypicking denier, beat him at a scientific argument, and get lots of good fodder for the Cherry series.

"Pielke's Cherrypicks" is pretty good.  It's not quite as memorable as "Cherry Pielke-ing", but there's also less reason to complain about it.  Might be the way to go.

2011-09-20 07:48:06
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.57.69

dana,

I agree with both points.

wrt discussion: I think it would be a mistake to run a second comment-fest. The last one was out of control. I think a more contained bi-simplex format would be much better: like alternating postings.

2011-09-20 10:06:19Joe Romm expressed discomfort? Seriously?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

He thought Christy's Crocks was too harsh? When did this happen?

2011-09-20 15:01:54
Same Ordinary Fool

chicagoriverturning@gmail...
184.98.9.117

I will miss the double alliteration in 'Christy Crocks', with both the 'c' and the 'r'.

'casuistry':  sophistry, delusion, evasion

'charade':  mimicry, trick, put on

'cant':  deceit, show, pomposity

Also:  caprice, chaff, confusion, contortion, contrivance

I'm partial to 'Christy casuistry' because the words are matched, because they both have suggestions of things religious.  But this may just be the prejudice of an apostate.

The 'hard way' of scanning long lists of words for possibilities becomes a little easier when done in a dictionary-type thesaurus, rather than in the dictionary itself.

2011-09-20 15:48:58
Same Ordinary Fool

chicagoriverturning@gmail...
184.98.9.117

Some 'P' words:  partition, perversion, pettiness, pick, plunder, poppycock, pranks, prattle, prejucice, propaganda, provacation, pseudo-, puff, puzzle

2011-09-20 19:41:26
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.104.94

I think "Pielke's Cherrypicks" sends the right message (if we don't establish "normal relations" with RPs):

- We are absolutely not going to back down from pointing out bad-faith science; but

- We are not going to needlessly ridicule someone who has complained about that sort of thing, by choosing something too cutesy.

 

Does that mean we should change the rest?

Well, if they want to talk about it, what about some dialogue on what they think is accomplished by their bad-faith arguments?

2011-09-21 01:34:14
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.177.54.84

These Pielke threads are getting very long.

 

One of the purposes of black propaganda is to get the other side to waste manpower.  By way of example, during WW2 the British military intelligence services did not just send messages to the European resistance groups: they also sent messages to entirely fictitious groups.

 

The denial machine is geared to the creation of doubt about climate science sufficient to get researchers to waste time and money on the re-checking of established facts.  Around the web, the same tactic is being used to get people so busy responding to denier comments that their output of factual articles is reduced.  Meanwhile, people like Pielke and Michaels give excuses for not allowing comments.  Patrick Michaels in particular is a very prolific writer.  He is not a prolific commenter.  There is a lesson here, folks.