2011-09-22 10:26:21Pielke bows out like a weenie
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Read it and weep.  I sure feel better about doing a Pielke's Cherries series now.

2011-09-22 10:33:51WUWT headline
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

"Albatross craps on Pielke's head!"

2011-09-22 10:41:49
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Shit-- Sorry all!  I was not expecting him cry foul and run so easily.  I think that we exposed to many of his logical fallacies, double standards and bias and his one-sided "skepticism".  And I think that he did not like me throwing the NRC report back at him (he participated in writing that) when he again tried to appeal to its authority.

I expected to have an energetic and candid exchange, you know like I have with some of my peers from time-to-time, although to be honest noone I know is that far removed from the mainstram science.....  I did not expect him to balk at the idea.  Frankly, I find his actions cowardly-- he was looking for an out and I inadverdantly gave it to him when I took offense to him misrepresenting my position. Sorry.

Yes, I have worked on monitoring Alabtrosses, their pretty crappy, although they do try and "project", it away from the nest.  Anyway, useless info I know.

Earlier I had to snip this from a post by Roger on that thread:

"I can see why some are having difficulting understanding the comments. However, this is a science weblog??"

What an arrogant, yet amazingly thin-skinned personality.

2011-09-22 10:46:16
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

The converstion got away from him.  This isn't surprizing.

2011-09-22 11:30:26Albatross
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Let's get jg working on a toon of your encounter with Pielke.

2011-09-22 11:33:41
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I'll have to change the intro to the final post a bit.  Even though he said he's done, I'll ask the last 2 questions anyway to give him a chance to defend his cherrypicking.  If he doesn't, the Pielke's Cherries series is unquestionably fair game after this shameful behavior.

Pielke can dish out some trash talking, but man, he sure can't take it.

In the models section I'll make use of Alby's finds in the NRC report.

2011-09-22 11:46:20
Agnostic

mikepope_9@hotmail...
118.208.81.161

Hmmm.  Thought it might end this way.  So, with Pielke Cherries, attack his science but not him lest he is given an excuse for ad-hom complaint - which I am sure you guys would never offer.

2011-09-22 11:59:55
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Yeah on Pielke's Cherries, my thought is that we even make a point to repeat that there are some issues on which we agree with Pielke (like the need to reduce CO2 emissions).  Hammer that point home, but then point out his cherrypicks.

2011-09-22 12:17:14Dunno about cartoon
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

I find the narky cartoons on Bishop Hill and WUWT quite distasteful and not a big fan of adopting that tone at SkS. So I wouldn't go the route of doing cartoons about Pielke or particular individuals.

Not surprised about Pielke - he dishes out accusations about SkS but morphs into a concern troll whenever he doesn't like the tone. But without saying 'I told you so', I did say trying to reason with him would be a waste of time.

Oh what the hell, I told you so :-)

Certainly any posts about Pielke will be about the science. That is how SkS is most effective - let's stick to the science, don't let emotion get in the way and don't expect to change Pielke's mind. Our audience is always the undecided majority so we write not as partisans but dispassionately and even-handed. Never forget that how we talk is just as important as what we say.

2011-09-22 12:25:24
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Also, going ahead with a Pielke's Cherries button will likely make us look vindictive about what just transpired.  I think we should go ahead with rebutting his contrarian arguments, like ohc, no delayed warming, land use is a first order climate forcing etc, but lets keep the button on hold until a few posts have acrued.  They are not very useful buttons anyway until a catalogue is developed.  I see no need to put ourselves out there for criticism when it's not needed.  It's the kind of thing that can really blow up in our faces. 

 

Pielke can play the victim because the exchanges took place here and there are a lot of us.  Let's not give him any more ammo until blows over.  Just science.

2011-09-22 12:28:11
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

If we do it that way, we just say that we had a few posts on Pielke's statements, so decided to use a button to highlight them.

2011-09-22 12:54:32
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.158.214.210

"I also spend considerable time repeating myself in answering their questions."

How did he miss that typo?

 

"I also spend considerable time repeating myself in not answering their questions."

 

Sorted!

2011-09-22 13:06:24The toon
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

2011-09-22 13:49:00
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

LOL @ logicman :-)

I think it would make sense to call the post "oceans still warming" or something like that, use the Pielke quote, but not call it "Pielke's Cherries" just yet.  Like grypo says, we can add a button and category later.

2011-09-22 14:26:19
adelady

amgnificent@gmail...
124.171.82.190

dana, just make sure we don't overlook that an adequate approach includes land as well as ocean.  And ocean ain't just the top few 10s or 100s of metres.

2011-09-22 14:56:05
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Yes adelady, the final Pielke discussion blog post is very explicit that we disagree on using OHC as the only global warming diagostic for those very reasons.  We're not going to agree with Pielke on that one - he's wrong.

2011-09-22 17:18:35
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Pielkes unwillingness to answer a direct question about Douglass et al paper (a paper he has cited in his work) is telling; he is unable to bring himself to criticise the work of his colleagues, which pretty much proves that his skepticism is one-sided.  It is a laught that he says on his blog that he has had to repeat himself (well if you duck a direct question you are just asking for it to be asked again - ask Michael Howard), and that the tone here is negative, well what do you expect if you engage in evasion rather than giving a direct answer?  Duh!

Very dissapointing.

2011-09-23 00:10:30Name for the Pielke series
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

I thought that we had more or less agreed on "Pielke's Cherry-picks"?

2011-09-23 02:37:12Dana's 3rd Article in the Pielke-A-Thon series.
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Dana plans to post Pielke's responses to our questions as an article tomorrow. Will this article also include a commentary on each of Pileke's answers. Tha is how he resonded our answers to his questions. What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

BTW, There's a good chance that Pielke will choose to post comments on tomorrow's article. We therefre need to set some explicit ground rules for the comment thread. No one should be permitted to bad-mouth Pielke before he arrives on the scene.

Why do I belive that Pielke will return.? Well, he left in a huff (three times actually) on the comment thread to Dana's initial article and then returned to post comments on Dana's second article. His ego will not let him pass by an opportunity to lecture us -- espcially if JC or Dana explicitly invite him to do so via email or a personal call.

For family reasons, I will not be available to moderate tomorrow's article. You need to designate someone in advance so he/she can be on top of the thread from the get-go.

2011-09-23 03:16:53
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I'll keep an eye on the comments and make sure people behave.  And yes, the post will address Pielke's answers, specifically where we agree and disagree with them.

neal - yes, something like Pielke's Cherrypicks.  But I agree with grypo that we shouldn't give the series that label just yet.  It would make us look petty.  I think for now we just address his cherrypicks with rebuttals, then down the road when we've published several, we can create the Cherrypicks category and button.

2011-09-23 03:17:37
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi John,

"No one should be permitted to bad-mouth Pielke before he arrives on the scene."

But is was an awfully good prediction was it not-- if onely my forecasts were so good ;)  Seriously though, I am not available tomorrow, funeral to attend and then stay-at-home dad.  So I will not be around to ruffle anyone elses feathers.

2011-09-23 03:31:26
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

You know...  I think everyone has gotten overly wound up over the Pielke encounter.  I would highly suggest giving it a rest for a while.  Dana has the final points post.  After that, how about just giving it a little time.  My concern here is that in this collective state we're going to post things that we will look back on and wish we hadn't.  It's a good time to take a break from the action and get a little distance before launching into Cherry Pielke-ing.

2011-09-23 03:39:01
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Rob,

I agree, with has been a huge draw on our reosurces...huge.  I thnk we all, inlcuding Pielke need to clam down and reflect on this.  Then maybe in two weeks or so, the cherry picking series can start. And we need to do it IMO, b/c emionent scoientists should not be allowed get away with distorting and misrepresenting data.

There is a big problem though-- if he takes strong exception to Dana's challenge (and starts being unpleasant) on the two exmples of cherry picking (he does not say that explicityly) then it might be necessary to role out in quick successio four posts addressing his claims:  GSL, Arctic ice, OHC and RSS/UAH.  (wow, he has cehrry-picked almost all of the key metrics!).

His back is to the wall right now, it really is.  So perhaps without knowing it, how he chooses to deal with the next post will set the stage and detemine  his fate.

 

2011-09-23 03:53:58
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Yeah we'll see if/how Pielke responds.  My plan is not to publish the first Pielke's Cherrypicks post for at least a week, but like Alby says, it may be warranted sooner, depending on how he reacts.  It's not like it would be any extra work - the post is already drafted and almost ready to go.  But we don't want to turn SkS into a Pielkefest, at the same time.  We've got plenty of other posts in the pipeline now, so I'm not too worried about that either.

2011-09-23 03:58:35Albatross
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

It pays to hold one's fire until one sees the whites of their eyes. Much easier said than done , though.

2011-09-23 04:01:05All
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Keep in mind, "The best defense is a good offense."

2011-09-23 11:01:07
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.60.16

John Hartz - I hope you don't take offense but..........reading through the Pielke threads can I suggest you dial back on the comments you are making there as a moderator? It seems to be coming across as self-congratulatory and biased.

I know the science is on our side, and it is frustrating reading some of the silly comments (ones that don't invoke deletion), but it would be better if a lighter hand were applied. 

Just sayin. 

2011-09-23 11:03:56
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

I'm worried about changing the record. We're being watched by someone at BH, evidently.

2011-09-23 11:40:25Editing comments
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

I think a no-go on editing comments from now on. Was never a good idea and certainly not when BHers are scrutinizing SkS ferociously at the moment. From now on, establish the right tone with comments first time around :-)

2011-09-23 11:43:24
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

I think the operant injunction is, "Before opening mouth, engage brain."

2011-09-23 11:43:45From the Moderation Handbook:
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

This excerpt from the Moderation Guidelines is prescient:

Editing Comments

You also have the ability to edit comments but it's strongly recommended you do this as little as possible. Eg - mainly to correct technical errors like bad HTML. If you're going to tweak your own comments, don't go too crazy rewriting past history (I've seen enough Doctor Who episodes to know that can only end badly).

Trust in Doctor Who. I've managed to get Dana hooked on the show and plan to convert the rest of you also!

2011-09-23 13:24:53
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

You might end up disappearing yourself right out of existence!  Really, Dr. Who is quite a good show :-)

But yeah I agree, don't edit comments (except to snip out inflammatory stuff, for example).  People really hate that, and then they go all Bishop Hill on us.

And I also agree, leave mod comments like "great comment!" to a minimum as well.  Otherwise it does look like we're being self-congratulatory, with SkS mods praising SkS comments. 

As I said in another thread, ideally we usually won't even be aware of the presence of moderators, unless their intervention is necessary.

2011-09-23 13:26:08
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi John,

Noted.  I'll be sure to only go in and fix typos and faulty tags, no content changes.

2011-09-23 13:29:15Rob Painting
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Which comments are you specifically referring to?

For the record, I didn't volunteer to take on the role of maoderator. I was sort of drafted by Neal after a number of comments had been made on the thread.  I did the best I could under some rather excrutiating circumstances.

Once the comment thread deteriorated into an general open chat, I decided to introduce some humor. SkS readers seemed to enjoy the banter.

Perhaps none you feel the same way, but I find continuously discussing climate change matters rather depressing. 

If my moderation of this thred did not meet SkS standards, I gladly remove myself from the Moderator's list.     

2011-09-23 13:41:05
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

John...  Don't worry.  You did fine.  Rob's just offering constructive criticism.  Given that you were thrown into the moderator's ring for the "fight of the century" you did a great job.

2011-09-23 13:43:18
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

You did fine, John.  Sorry I've been of little assistance lately.  Nearing the end of a major 4-week push at work.

2011-09-23 14:39:08
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Ditto John H - it's intended as constructive criticism.  The more people we have keeping an eye on comments as moderators, the better.  But we can all always improve.

2011-09-23 16:16:52
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.50.55

John H - As others have suggested - just some constructive criticism. For instance adding "excellent post" after one of Alby's(?) comments was uncecessary and comes across as cheerleading, or backslapping. That's a denier blog tactic that we can do without.  

Don't take this as a slight, and don't let it dissuade you from moderating. The more moderators the better.  

2011-09-23 23:53:09Where did the myth...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

that "many" comments were deleted from this thread come from?

2011-09-24 00:00:50
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.6

I don't know specifically.

But I do remember that we post-edited comments made during the first run of Pielke vs. Sks_Commenters: You will remember that I listed specific phrases that I thought had gone too far, and asked the originators to cut them back.

2011-09-24 01:42:44nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

You are correct. We made deletions and corrections to comments by SkS authors on the comment thread of Dana's first article. We did not do so on the comment thread to Dana's second article. That is whay I am perplexed by the statements made above and by DB's moderator comment on comment #186 of Dana's second article.

2011-09-24 01:51:33For the Record
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

My personality does not mesh well with the classic role of Moderator being a neutral, above the fray, party.  I therefore will not play the role of principle moderator of future comment threads. I'll continue to do spot moderation.

BTW, i thought I had handed the principle moderator btaon to Dirkan about half-way through the comment thread to Dana's second article. It didn't happen as I had hoped it would.

2011-09-24 02:04:24
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.6

It's a good excuse.

As has been said above: From now on, the way we stay away from excessive hot water is to keep the tone even; think before posting.

Also: If we have such an arrangement again, I would suggest another format: Have an active moderator (instead of a reactive moderator) who gives each person the floor. There could be either 2 timeslots: 1 for Pf. X and 1 for SkS; or 3 (1 more for someone else not specifically inside SkS). The moderator would call upon each timeslot in turn. The moderator could also note that so-and-so's answer did not seem to be responsive to the question.

In other words, something similar to a debate format; the goal being to avoid all the SkSers tripping over each other; and Pf. X being able to take advantage of that situation to avoid answering questions he didn't like.

There would have to be a back channel of communication among SkSers: to pool knowledge, and to provide some cooling-off for the rhethoric.

The moderator should also be in a stronger position to say, "Look, we're not making any further progress on this point; let's move to the next." I would have been happy to have covered more ground, rather than have Pielke re-iterate his same position again and again. Just minute that the answer wasn't accepted as satisfactory, and move on.

2011-09-24 03:35:04naljking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Excuse? I think not. My wife did a ROFL when I told her I had moderated the comment thread to Dana's second article.

2011-09-24 03:43:25
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.6

"It's a good excuse.": That was an answer either to something that got erased or that I misremembered from a different thread: concerning the rationale behind the attack on Dana's graph or on JC's comment-editing.

2011-09-24 04:07:46nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Thanks for the clarification.