2012-01-24 09:36:55Actually Thoughtfull
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.169.107

wrote:

"Tom Curtis I echo my gratitude to all the people you mentioned by name, and I will also point out that your contributions to the comment threads have been fantastic - I really enjoy what you have to say, and how you say it, and you have certainly earned the trust and respect your contributions receive.

And I repeat my offer to contribute time ($$ not being a possibility)."

(My emphasis)

Somebody sign him up quick before he regains sanity. 

I am certain he would be an invaluable member of the team, both because he is very well named, and because he has a keen eye for potential flaws in blog posts and moderation that seem to slip through our collective blind spots.  I am certain that his participation in the article review process, and in moderating would help us improve the already high standard of our moderation and articles.

2012-01-24 11:34:26
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Actually, actually thoughtfull has aleady contributed this thoughtfull missive (yeah, been waiting for more than 6 months to use that one...):

Throwing Down The Gauntlet

Posted on 30 June 2011 by actually thoughtful

The Thinker

First of all, if you are still skeptical about the science, please read the other 4,372 posts on Skeptical Science. There literally isn't a wrinkle in the subject that isn't addressed at some level elsewhere on this blog.

2012-01-24 11:35:42
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Oh, and thanks, Tom, for the kind words.  Your efforts are also appreciated, more than you know.

2012-01-24 12:47:03
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I concur.

(A side benfit is that he/she would no longer post public comments about the warts of SkS.)

2012-01-24 13:01:07
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Calling out the "warts" so that SkS knows what & how to "improve" is a very necessary function.  I, for one, am glad that one so well-spoken and well-meaning as AT has done so.  Tom Curtis, KR & Albatross have done similarly (to name but a few).

No one says we, or SKS, are perfect.  But it is in the striving for perfection, despite the known fallability of man and his creations, that shows the greatness latent in our species.  It is the refusing to give, to continually seek the unattainable, our unslakeable thirst for knowledge and greatness...and our ability to cooperate that defines the potential of our race.

When we (SkS) pretend to be perfect and ignore our flaws is when we have lost our high ground.

2012-01-25 03:37:01
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Yooper,

I completely agree with you.

PS - I still prefer to have someone like Acutallythoughtful calling out the SkS warts behind the scenes rather than in the public comment section. That is what my prior post was all about.

2012-01-25 06:22:46
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.111.72

John, I don't see a great problem with it. 

2012-01-25 14:22:33
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.169.107

Rob, I do see a problem with it.  Airing our dirty linen in public is a bad idea when we are involved in what is, in part at least,  PR war.  Having said that, and obviously from my practise, sometimes it is necessary or better to go public.  My feeling is that I would rather deal with structural issues behind clossed doors, to the extent possible.  However, if the issue is raised by somebody else, you should then give a forthright, truthful response, which may well involve some criticism.  

In contrast, in some instances I believe there have been simple abberations in performance which, I believe, should be immediately raised publicly because there will be at least one member of the public feeling the unfairness of the decission, who will not be privy to the issue behind doors.  By raising the issue publicly, you immediately give that person a defender from within the inner team.  They will recognize that, and if amenable to reason recognize the aberation as just that, particularly if the problem is corrected.

This is not a question of whether or not issues should be raised, but only of where they should be raised.  Of course, I don't pretend that I get the balance right based on the principles above, but I do try.

2012-01-26 05:22:02
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

So has someone emailed AT and taken them up on their offer?

2012-01-27 05:56:08
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.169.107

Can I echoe Albatross's question.  I assume the invite has to come from one of the people with extended moderator privileges so that they can grant access. 

2012-01-27 06:01:50
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I'm pretty sure AT has access, given that he's written a blog post, which I'm pretty sure I remember reviewing.

I'll shoot him an email though as a reminder that we've often got projects going in the forum that he could contribute to.

2012-01-27 06:07:59
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.169.107

Quick check of the forum activity page shows you are right.  He has three posts, all in late June 2011.  Sorry, I should have checke before and emailed him myself.

2012-01-28 06:17:16
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

The following comment by Actually Thoughtful gives me pause. Rob Painting is not too thrilled with it either. 


actually thoughtful at 04:58 AM on 28 January 2012

NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
I wrote this one before, it appears to have gone missing.

Rob Painting - your reply to me relies on part 2, which as of this writing, is not available. The concerns raised by some posters here indicate that part 1 may not be able to stand on its own.

While you are welcome to your opinion - I find this statement incredibly elitist: "The woman and man in the street isn't going to be able to make sense of the observations, especially with distortions by fake-skeptics. That's why we exist - to communicate this information in a, hopefully, comprehensible manner. To expect a public audience to be able to process this information without guidance is foolish."

At the end of your reply to me you mention there is no nuance. If you don't understand why people are confused by short term weather patterns, that could be a root cause of why this post is getting so many responses of the "there be dragons" type.

2012-01-28 07:19:52
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.220.230

John H, if one wants to act the part of a mole, then it would be remiss of me to not whack them over the head with a sledgehammer.

His complaints are self-contradictory and there not very thoughtful actually. Sounds more like a delayer (as Yooper would describe it) - you know, exaggerate uncertainty and doubt so inaction looks justified.

Looks like I was wrong John H, and your suspicions on the mark. A lot of his comments tread this familiar path.

2012-01-28 15:15:53
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Rob,

My biggest problem with Actually Thouhgtful is the size of his ego.

2012-01-28 16:22:35
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.169.107

John Hartz, nobody actively commenting on discussion threads on the internet has a small ego.  By the nature of the case, if you comment you think your opinion is worth being heard by the world.  Actually Thoughtfull does not strike me as unusual in that regard.

Rob Painting, I do not think AT is trolling.  While I think his concerns about predictions are in this case a bit  precious, the dispute between you is not that different than the dispute that has periodically flared between NealJKing and myself. People are allowed to have different views on what constitutes an effective communication strategy, and are allowed to express those views.

And with respect, your reply to him did heavilly reference part 2 of your post, which is still not publicly available.  If in adressing concerns raised about part 1, you need to reference part 2, then logically they do not stand alone.  (That they are part 1 and part 2 is a bit of a give away in that regard.)

2012-01-28 16:33:44
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

As an FYI, as someone with Pending Author status, Actually Thoughtfull has access to the Forum...and this thread.

2012-01-28 16:42:51
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.149.204

Tom, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If I read one chapter of a book, would it be logical for me to complain that the whole story isn't clear? And if he wasn't clear on it, why not read the flippin NASA analysis, which is freely available and linked to near the top of the post? 

And he complains that we should let people make up their own minds, and then he complains that we haven't explained things clearly enough. Which is it?

These are not things to disagree upon this is a grand failure in logical thinking.

Also wouldn't it be better if he spoke upon his own behalf, rather than pretending to be the people's representative?

I have serious doubts about this guy, not just because of this, but because it seems to be a consistent pattern.  

2012-01-28 16:43:41
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.149.204

Well, I hope he reads this then Yooper and pulls his head in.

2012-02-08 19:02:25
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.181.27.53

Or posts on the forum and puts a somewhat contrary point of view. It isn't the point of view that is at issue. It is the moral, intellectual and psychological honesty with which that person holds their view that matters. Whereas we all know that most mainstream deniers are morally, intellectually and psychologically dishonest. Nothing sadder than someone who lies to themselves!