Comments on: Revkin on the Hansen Fiasco

By: çok güzel hareketler bunlar

çok güzel hareketler bunlar — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:18:45 +0000

This process actually has a name: It is called “Science” — an old-fashioned approach to learning about the natural world.

By: steven mosher

steven mosher — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:16:18 +0000

re 118. Sam U. have Anthony Watts send you my email. I’ll show you something that will make you smile

By: Yorick

Yorick — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:05:29 +0000

Recently Revkin invited his readers to discuss the scientific claims of the Heartland Conference. He was clearly disappointed that the only thing the commenters cared about was the funding. Few of the readers of his “science” column appear at all interested in science. Besides, the weak attempted smackdowns by the midguards of AGW have been pathetic to anybody with any ability in the area of critical thinking. Look at Rasmus’s recent “criticism” of Shaviv. Rasmus got the number of arms in the Milky Way galaxy wrong. This stuff has to add up, even in a bubble like the NYT. Hey, I started out a warmer. I thought it would be fun to debate the anti science idiots who didn’t believe it in the same way I enjoyed debating the topic that shall not be named here. I soon found out that I could never get the better ofa na argument to my own satisfaction.

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:12:54 +0000

The fact that Revkin can make conservative noises in front of a group of MIT alums shouldn’t surprise anyone. I doubt that he’s actually shifting to a more reasonable position himself. As Kim observes about Revkin’s February climate blog, he is accutely sensitive to anything that can be construed as “crisis”, and will take the opportunity to amplify it in his columns and blog. It’s been cool lately. Wait for the first drought of summer.

By: Sam Urbinto

Sam Urbinto — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:37:57 +0000

Free The Code!!!!

By: steven mosher

steven mosher — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:23:38 +0000

re 116.

very good stuff. Especially the non rational appeals. That’s magic for both sides

free the code! hehe.

By: theduke

theduke — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:43:38 +0000

Whoops. Here’s the link:

http://www.countryguardian.net/warm_words.pdf

By: theduke

theduke — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:42:07 +0000

Mosh: the following was quoted on CA some months back. Pay particular attention to the Conclusion (part 5.) It's all there in black and white.

By: JamesG

JamesG — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:58:26 +0000

It seems that Revkin has realized that the real issue of concern is not so much global warming but energy sustainability. In a world where Asia’s economies are expanding and will push earth’s resources to the limit, arguing sustainability is not actually contentious yet deals with the same need for new energy sources as AGW. Since we are mostly agreed on the urgent need for a sensible energy plan then it’s ok for ardent warmers to relax the rhetoric. I look forward to more of them realizing this.

Maybe he’s also realized that all the shrill rhetoric hasn’t achieved anything. A good example is that regardless of all the hurricane and sea-level hype, people still kept moving to the southern coasts in droves. So either the public think the scientists are exaggerating too much or they think scientists are now so clever they can solve any problem.

By: steven mosher

steven mosher — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:30:12 +0000

RE 108 the entire ” there is no debate” meme is ironic. It’s
a rhetorical tactic. (Coming from me that should not be construed as a criticism.) The problem
with it as a tactic, is that… THERE IS A DEBATE. There is an attempt to change peoples behavior through verbal action: debate and propaganda. The whole notion of denying that there is a debate is
Monty Python silly. It would be far better for the AGW crowd to actually LEARN how to convince people.

Here are some clues.

1. You dont convince people by calling them nazis
2. You dont convince people by calling them stupid
3. You dont convince people by threatening to jail them.
4. You dont convince people by saying “everyone else believes”
5. You dont convince people with fear
6. You dont convince people by telling them to google something
7. You dont convince people by being anonymous.

Need I go on. To be sure, nothing I’ve said here goes to the truth of the matter.
The notion that there is “no debate” is a marketing campaign and not a very effective one.
Arguing that there is no debate is, well, rather ironic.