Moving beyond semantics, though, a more fruitful discussion would get down to cases. For example, which definition of “skeptic” applies to Freeman Dyson?

I’ve gone back and reread the various statements he has signed, i.e. the Oregon petition, the Bali open letter to the U.N. Secretary-General (2007) and the Manhattan Declaration (2008). I don’t see how any scientist professing to be open-minded or credible on climate change science, even one as ill-informed as Dyson, could possibly sign those statements.

I find it extraordinary that so far no one in the media has thought to ask him about any of this, or even acknowledged that this is possibly problematic behaviour. If the New York Times or Newsweek is going to be gulled into “placing bullhorns in front of contrarian outliers” (in Thom’s felicitous phrase), that’s the least they could do.

Tom, your silence on this particular issue is deafening. Have you read the SourceWatch reference I gave you on the NRSP executive director (and ex-APCO operative) Tom Harris’s co-ordination of the Bali open letter? Have you read the open letter itself in your on going quest to “read [Dyson's] views, consider them, and investigate them”?

Do you ever stop to actually consider what other people have to say? Have you ever been at least tempted to say something like this?: “You know, I never thought of it that way. I don’t think I believe it, but I will give it some thought.”

Or do you simply think you are infallible?

That’s too funny.

If I gave the impression that I was implicating the commenters on this page, please forgive me. That was not my intent. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I was reacting more to the kinds of commentary I see on sites like Climate Progress.

And even though I know many of you believe Joe Romm does more good than harm, I won’t hold that against you!

Tom:
“I think there’s more than ageism at work here. I detect something I’m seeing all too often lately — namely, close mindedness and even a desire to shut down expression of ideas contrary to one’s own.”

Leaving aside Thom (more on that another time), in the context this clearly suggests that the “comment on this page” (from Gavin Schmidt, Steve Bloom, Aaron, Michael Tobis and myself) somehow represent “close mindedness and even a desire to shut down expression of ideas contrary to one’s own.”

I take it that you are now withdrawing that presumably unintended implication. Fine, I’ll accept that.

Thank you for this clarification, and please forgive me for misinterpreting what you wrote.

As for the New York Times piece sitting in a Republican office when you visited earlier in the week, by your standard you are just as guilty as Dawidoff. The article was there, and so were you.

Quite obviously, when I wrote that Dawidoff’s piece was a “balance” piece and interesting read, I was stating that Dawidoff was falling into the trap of profiling a contrarian. Such pieces, as I pointed out, play into the corporate hand of “paying off experts AND placing bullhorns in front of contrarian outliers.”

See that word “and”? It’s a word that means the words prior AND following are…different. You see, Tom, there can be two types. That’s why the word AND is so important. In your zeal, you sort of overlooked that. AND yes, that is tiresome. And yes, when I walked into a Republican office earlier week on the Hill, the Dawidoff piece was on a press secretary’s desk.

So yes, it is feeding into the disinformation campaign. I’m sure it was sent around by someone at one of the right-wing think tanks. In much the same way as the Pielke studies and blog postings get sent around on the same circuit.

As for backing into a corner, that only happens if you are unwilling to admit when you’ve made a mistake. I have no problem with admitting my mistakes. In fact, I know that I screw up fairly regularly, and I admit it when I do. That is how I avoid getting boxed into corners.

Also, if you find me “tiresome,” “ridiculous,” and “embarrassing,” then why do you keep coming back for more of what I write? It sounds like you are a glutton for punishment.

This is what you wrote:

“This all changed when corporations stepped into the picture and began paying off experts and placing bullhorns in front of contrarian outliers. Journalists looking for “balance” and an interesting read like Dawidoff have become the enablers of this disinformation. Read David Michaels “Manufacturing Uncertainty” to get better informed.”

Your comment was in response to my post on Freeman Dyson. It references “contrarian outliers,” which is a charge that has been leveled against Freeman Dyson. (And do you deny that you believe he is a “contrarian outlier”?) Lastly, your comment explicitly references Dawidoff and by implication his profile of Freeman Dyson — since that is the context of this entire discussion. So I think any reasonable person would conclude that you believe, and were implying that, Freeman Dyson is implicated in the corporate denial campaign.

So Thom, tell us for the record: Do you think Dyson is likely an honest man who is simply wrong? Or is he, in fact, implicated in the corporate denial campaign? Do you think he is just uninformed and incorrect, or corrupt? Now is your chance to set the record straight.