When I investigated I discovered that Marc Morano is driving traffic my way because he had included CEJournal on the blogroll of his Climate Depot Web site. For those of you who don’t know who Marc is, many progressives consider him to be the evil leader of the climate denialist empire. (And simply because I’m on Morano’s blogroll, I fully expect the Romm – ulans to attack me as a “denier-eq”.)
This got me to wondering: Why the heck would any of you Moranoans bother to read my stuff? When it comes to climate change, I obviously believe that we have a very serious problem demanding strong action. Moreover, I think many of you guys live in an alternate universe in which your basic political and philosophical orientations preclude acceptance of the very idea that humans could dominate global life support systems. Perhaps this is because acceptance of this idea comes with recognition that the free market alone isn’t going to help us get out of this fix. And for many people, that’s simply anathema. (Of course, folks who make their fortunes in the fossil fuel biz, along with their facilitators, have their own reasons.)
On the other hand, I also acknowledge that some climate activists live in their own alternate universe. At the extreme, some folks in this universe see every puff of wind and every thunderstorm as attributable to climate change (not to mention bridge collapses).
So why do we beam down into each others’ alternate universes through our blogs? Are we really open to ideas that conflict with our own? Or is something else going on?
With a nudge from Nicholas Kristof’s terrific column in today’s New York Times, I sought some answers at www.yourmorals.org. The site includes a series of surveys developed by researchers to assess how liberals and conservatives weigh various factors differently. Their goal is to learn something about moral psychology. My goal in taking the surveys was to learn something about why I think what I think, and whether I’m as open minded as I like to think I am.
For the record, I consider myself slightly liberal, and I honestly can’t say that I’ve ever voted for a Republican for president. On the other hand, I do pride myself on striving to keep an open mind about issues, and not only to understand where people with different points of view are coming from, but also wherever possible to find common ground.
So, what did I learn from the surveys?
On the “moral foundation” survey, I came out as a little schizophrenic, siding with liberals on some foundations and conservatives on others. But the truth be told, I actually was on the conservative side on three of the foundations, the liberal side on one, and right in the middle on a fifth foundation. (Uh oh, here come the Rommulans again…)
I also took something called the “Empathizing and Systematizing” survey. When it comes to empathy (“the drive to identify another person’s emotions and thoughts, and to respond to these with an appropriate emotion”), liberals are supposed to out-wuss conservatives. But surprisingly, the survey has shown that conservatives score ever-so-slightly higher in the empathy department. (You wuss’s!!). Meanwhile, the political divide with systematizing (“the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system”) is unclear. This trait is allegedly more masculine, and conservatives like to think that they have the macho edge. (Didn’t we just learn otherwise?) On the other hand, liberals are supposed to have “a tendency to abstraction,” and to think about society “as a system that can be managed and optimized.”
Where did I come out? I outdid both liberals and conservatives in wussiness AND systematizing. In other words, once again I’m schizoid. (I’m thinking this is a good trait for a journalist.)
Okay, enough of the Opraesque shaaaaring. Let’s get to the main point. The surveys show that liberals and conservatives really do come from different universes. As Kristof puts it in his column, “liberals and conservatives don’t just think differently, they also feel differently.” For example, if you’re a liberal, chances you won’t feel as bad as a conservative about slapping your father in the face in a comedy skit. Even with a father’s permission, conservatives would find this too much of an assault on authority. (For the record: This would bother the heck out of me.)
But there is one thing that unites us: Our moral frameworks convince us of our own rectitude, and close us off from considering other points of view. “It appears that we start with moral intuitions that our brains then find evidence to support,” Kristof writes.
So I’m betting that little of what I say here at CEJournal is actually going to convince you to change your views about climate change, because they stem to a large degree from more fundamental frames of mind. To the extent that you come back here it’s because you find tidbits that reinforce your view that I’m a pathetic climate alarmist who is hellbent on destroying the economy. Similarly, little of what I find on Climate Depot is likely to convince me to change my views, and is more likely to reinforce my feeling that you guys are completely divorced from scientific reality. (Although since I probably score higher on wussiness AND systematizing than most of you do, maybe I’ll be more conflicted…).
Does it have to be this way?
“Our minds were not designed by evolution to discover the truth; they were designed to play social games,” says Jonathan Haidt, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia, quoted by Kristof in his column. (Hey, that nicely explains the success of blogging, doesn’t it?)
But as Kristof says, our hard-wiring for social interaction suggests ways for opponents to influence each other:
Gay rights were probably advanced largely by the public’s growing awareness of friends and family members who were gay.
A corollary is that the most potent way to win over opponents is to accept that they have legitimate concerns, for that triggers an instinct to reciprocate.
Now get this: The best way to start this process, Kristof says, is to eat meals together, “for that breaks down ‘us vs. them’ battle lines that seem embedded in us.”
Alright then, so the next time you’re in Boulder, shoot me an email and we’ll go have some coffee. (You’re buying!) With a bit of luck, maybe we can agree that regardless of climate change, we need an Apollo-scale effort to develop transformational energy technologies.
This thing has 44 Comments
Speaking of “political and philosophical orientations:”
“The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.”
-TheNation,
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/cockburn
Why can’t we get along? It is because of the utter nonsense posts like this one that seek to explain how two groups of people presented with the same facts reach different conclusions, and it always comes down to a policical leaning in your mind, it stems from the socially conditioned intolerence to accept that anyone could possibly not come to the same conclusion that you do.
What I find amazing is that for people who seem to be supportive of science as a truth giver and tend to place people who understand the limits of science in a group such as “and is more likely to reinforce my feeling that you guys are completely divorced from scientific reality” that you and those like you have little or no understanding of the “Scientific Method” and how it is used to govern science from postulating theories and laws that cannot be proven incorrect.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is one such theory. It’s very nature and path of pursuit via changable fixed application of unknown or little understood variables in computer models prevents it from ever being a valid scientific theory. The tests for such models are backcasted, which means that you are only matching the results of the experiment and not pre-determining its outcome. When the models deviate they are tweaked and backcasted again and again insuring that they never are wrong.Yet even that has not stopped people from accepting it and trumpeting its false science.
I sugggest watching this short video of Prof. Richard Fenyman for a very simple explanation as to what the scientific method is and what it means.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in5J6D-0vxY&feature=player_embedded
Daryl:
Dude, have you no sense of humor and humanity? Ease up. Laugh at me, and yourself.
Laugh you say, Tom? The prospect of American government enacting policies like cap-and-trade that will allow it to control virtually every aspect of our lives is no laughing matter. What on earth ever possessed you to believe that increasing concentrations of a trace gas in our atmosphere could somehow dominate all other forces of nature and cook the planet? Have you read the climate sensitivity studies of Lindzen, Spencer, Christy and others? Mother Nature has a highly effective balancing mechanism that barely notices mankind’s CO2 emissions. Human urbanization and other alterations to the landscape have a bit more of an impact, but they pale in comparison to the forces of the sun, the oceans, clouds, water vapor and precipitation systems.
You call yourself an environmental journalist? You’re not a journalist. You’re not supposed to “believe” anything. You’re nothing more than an environmentalist with a writing job. Where’s your objectivity, the foremost tenet of journalism?
Pick up a science book and read it. Read some of the non-government, non-enviro climate science blogs. Read what Roy Spencer has to say. Listen to Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, Joe D’Aleo and Roger Pielke, Jr. and Sr. And then re-read your Journalism texts, particularly the pages about unbiased reporting.
You dumbass, he has two blogrolls. One for skeptics and one for kool-aid drnkers. Your on the kool-aid list.
I’m very concerned that I am now a polluter. With the recent EPA ruling that CO2 is a harmful, reportable pollutant, I’m in violation with every breath I take; actully, every exhale, but no song by that title… yet.
In fact, I’m a heavy polluter; I exercise just about every day, with a minimum of 30 minutes of cardio. I’m also leading others into pollution; my children when playing sports, my bride in moments of passion and my colleagues when I make them laugh out loud.
As with most government programs, I’m sure I’ll be taxed for my excesses; a new line on the 1040 “Number Of Exhales / Year” X $1.00. And, as with most government programs, those in government will be exempt; another example of “do as I say, not as I do.” Soon, teachers will be banned from speaking in schools, as will be the singing of the national anthem and heaven help any large religious gathering!
To add to my woes, I’ll also be party to a massive case of extermination, the killing of plants. Without my CO2, they will begin to sufficate, will stop expiring oxygen, which, will futher impact earthly fauna.
If I were not such a patriot, I’d kill myself so as to save the world, but I know my government needs my tax dollars; owning banks and auto companies is not cheap! But, so as to sequester my harmful CO2 pollutant under-ground, I’ve taken up the practice of putting my head in the sand for every exhale; it may not work nor have any scientific basis, but it makes me feel good and isn’t this what climate change is all about? Plus, it’s what my government wants me to do and who is smarter then our elected and appointed leaders?
God help us all…
Molon: I usually don’t permit this kind of discourse at CEJournal, and so I was about to delete your comment. But I think I will leave it because it actually helps prove the point I made in my posting (which you obviously didn’t read, probably because you were so aroused at the prospect of of calling me a dumbass that you couldn’t get past the first couple of paragraphs).
Ralph: I’m not supposed to “believe” anything? So journalists are supposed to be robots?
If journalists can never have a point of view, then please explain the following for the readers of CEJournal: the National Review, Weekly Standard, and American Spectator, not to mention The New Republic, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, the Village Voice, Boston Phoenix, San Francisco Bay Guardian and Westword.
Thomas Jefferson would have been aghast at your antiseptic definition of journalism.
Why do climate “deniers” read this site. Simple. They read both sides. They look for information, so they read AGW “believer” sites.
You find this unusual because believers cannot tolerate opposing views, so they don’t read skeptic sites. They don’t want information that conflicts with their view.
Tom – Here’s why a journalist should not “believe” anything:
– Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. — Albert Einstein
– In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. — George Orwell
– Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it. — Andre Gide
– The objective of science is not agreement on a course of action, but the pursuit of truth. — John Kay, Financial Times of London
– The more rapidly truth is spread among mankind the better it will be for them. Only let us be sure that it is the truth. — Thomas Huxley
– If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. — Joseph Goebbels
Realist:
Thank you for reading CEJournal. I really do appreciate it.
But do skeptics read “AGW believer” sites because they have an open mind, or are they simply looking for tidbits that confirm their beliefs that folks like me are, as Molon above put it, “dumbasses”?
The point of my post was that there is very little that you or I or anyone else can write that will change minds on an issue like climate change because of our deeply embedded mental frameworks. As Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia points out, “Our minds were not designed by evolution to discover the truth; they were designed to play social games.” And that, of course, is what’s playing out in this comments section of CEJournal.
So far, in fact, not a single person has actually addressed the main point of my post. We’re just playing out the same game, over and over and over. (“Global warming is a myth perpetrated by evil scientists who want to ruin the economy.” “Denialists are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.” “You call yourself a journalist? You’re just an environmentalist in disguise.” “You’re a dumbass.” “No I’m not.” Yes you are…” And on and on and on.)
Things would probably be different if we were actually discussing this in person over a beer. Although I suspect that folks like Molon probably would still call me a dumbass. (But what does he know? He probably likes Bud Lite…)
Ralph:
I knew it was only a matter of time before Godwin’s Law would come into effect. It states: “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” (For a post on this, go here.)
Your list of quotations is impressive. But you ignored my question. And invoked the Nazis instead. So much for truth seeking.
Tom,
I am absolutely amazed that you are so unaware of the science that you can call Climate Depot “completely divorced from scientific reality”. Why is it that you give no examples of this, so called, scientific delusion? If Climate Depot is so obviously distorting the science, then it should be very easy for you to give specific examples and totally discredit Mr. Morano. Why don’t you simply list your evidence and then list the ways that Climate Depot has misrepresented it? I always hear people on your side of the argument speaking confidently in scientific generalities, but I never hear any real specific scientific evidence and when I do hear some scientific evidence, a little research invariably shows that the facts have been misrepresented. I am open to the idea that humans might effect the climate, but I continually see misrepresentations and out right lies from advocates of AGW, such as 35+ distortions in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. I would be happy to list these now, but it would fill many pages and is not the point of this post. The only real evidence of AGW are computer models that can only account for a fraction of the known variables and are all manipulated with poor assumptions. If you understood the scientific method, you would understand that computer models do not represent real evidence of anything, but are simply vehicles for speculation. I challenge you to post all the scientific evidence that supports the theory of AGW. Computer models and pronouncements from political organizations like the UN’s IPCC are not scientific evidence. Simply list the peer reviewed studies that support the theory that you support. Then, and only then, can you honestly and credibly call Climate Depot “divorced from scientific reality”.
Rob:
Did you read my post? It’s not at all about Climate Depot, and whether Marc is or is not divorced from scientific reality. It’s about the mental frameworks we bring to debates like this — and why we parachute into each others’ blogs to play social games — just like the one that is playing out here.
Tom,
I did read your post and I do agree with most of what you say about the AGW argument (or for that matter, just about any disagreement)and the poor way that the issue is debated and discussed. Why you felt the need to insult Climate Depot in your argument was really the issue that I found most interesting. I have grown to accept that intelligent discourse and argument is more rare than a golden unicorn. I was hoping that maybe you would do something different and start an intelligent discussion.
Rob:
I worded things in an exaggerated manner to make the point about our rigid mental frameworks. (My comment about the “Rommulans” coming to get me — a reference to Joe Romm at Climateprogress, with a link to the evil Nero from the current Star Trek — should have been a tip off that I was trying to be funny and provocative at the same time.)
I admitted my own orientation to the issues in an attempt to get people to think about their own. But as the discourse here in the comments section clearly demonstrates, our mental frameworks are so strong that we simply can’t get past them to really consider what the “dumbass” on the other side of the debate is actually saying.
I guess my real point is that not everyone is so closed minded and you do not have to be a slave to your current conclusions. My views have changed throughout my life based on my own study and experience. I encourage you and everyone to try to ignore your own biases and try actually having an intelligent civil discussion and leave the emotion out of it. Having said that, I will just close by calling you a “Dumbass”. Just Kidding.
) Have a good one.
Wow, Tom you weren’t kidding. I guess if Marc posts a link to your blog its no wonder you got the responses posted above. I still find it utterly fascinating of all the talk of reading both sides etc, but NOBODY ever links to actual peer reviewed science. Well done keeping up with all of it Tom. Its no easy task to keep the conversation civil when you get the responses you did above.
Realist,
If I had to label myself, I’d choose scientist. Not because I read somebody’s blog for scientific information, but instead because I read the actual peer reviewed science. The so called ‘skepticism’ that everyone claims to be practicing, seems to ignore the fact that a skeptic will ask questions when presented with information and make a decision based on the best available information. Those who choose to believe that AGW is a lie perpetrated by corrupts scientists (kind of an oxy moron in itself), CHOOSE to ignore that enormous body of literature supporting the theory. Instead you cling to the few studies that support your preconceived ideas.
Tom,
I do like to hear the other side of the argument. On such an important issue I believe that debate and the exchange of information is the best way to reach the truth. I wasn’t always a “denier” but having been exposed to both sides I have landed on the side of the realist. When one side is saying things like the “the debate is over” when I never heard any debate, or “the science is settled” when I know that science is never settled, these are fighting words. We know that the climate has been both colder and warmer within the past 1000 years. We know that the earth has been in a cooling trend for the past 10 years. So why the panic?
To me there are 4 questions that need to be answered.
1. is the earth currently warming?
2. is the warming caused by mans activity?
3. is the warming such a bad thing?
4. is there anything that can be done to stop warming?
I don’t believe that any of these questions have been debated and answered. Don’t you think they should be before we completely alter our way of life?
To add, anytime I see a statement such as this posted on any blog, “World temperatures have already stopped rising since 1998, which annoys the IPCC,” just as Climatedepot does, I will take anything they say with a grain of salt.
Tom – My point is simply that modern journalism has lost its way. Major networks and newspapers pay far more attention to ratings and the entertainment value of their product than their role as the Fourth Estate. Objective reporting is a vanishing art.
Most of the publications you list are examples of the all-consuming trend in advocacy journalism (an oxymoron in my book). They represent a right-leaning view of the world and, for the most part, their editors make no pretense of their lack of objectivity. The same is true for many left-leaning publications. They’re honest about the point of view their content represents.
My lament is that with all the competing and confusing influences brought on by the internet and its variations of information technology, there are few remaining publications or media outlets that understand the value and importance of balanced journalism (a redundant term in my book). Many may represent themselves as a balanced source of information, but they do a grave disservice to the journalistic profession in making such a claim because their reporting is clearly slanted.
ob-jec-tive — not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
jour-nal-ism — The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
Aaron,
When someone blames global warming on a weather event such as a hurricane or a heat wave, do you take what they say with a grain of salt? Are you saying that the earth is not in a cooling trend since 1998? or are you saying that it is too short a period of time to be considered a trend?
I think it is hysterical, Tom, that most of the responses here totally ignore the irony in your posting and the insight you tried to bring to the us-them dynamic and some underlying reasons (social, behavioral) for it in the global warming debate.
I think it is even funnier that Ralph Hansen PhD (in what field I might ask) invokes the Pielkes, father and son as climate deniers… that is exactly exactly the opposite of what RP Jr. thinks, and if RH had ever really read any of Pielke’s work (as opposed to reading other people’s blogs that misinterpret his research), then RH probably would not have invoked them in his list of must-read science (another Rommulan influence, perhaps? If the Rommulans say RP Jr is a denier, then he MUST be a denier!!).
And this sort of gets to the heart of the matter of what you and Kristoff were talking about, that ultimately, beliefs and values go to the very heart of this debate about global warming. I actually think it would be easier for the deniers to acknowledge this rather than continue to construct a feeble ‘scientific’ argument to justify their beliefs. Something like, “Ok, so humans are influencing global climate. I still believe we should focus on other problems such as [fill in the blank] and not put resources into fighting climate change.”
The believers may have scientific facts to support their claims, but what to do about global warming is still ultimately a reflection of values, beliefs and preferences. The scientific facts do not dictate policy preferences.
Keep up the interesting work.
Mildred:Thanks for the support and your thoughtful comments!
Tom, are you polluting when you exhale? Are plants feeding on pollution?
Mildred – “The believers may have scientific facts to support their claims, ” or they may not. The science is not “settled” and those interested in open, constructive and informed debate should recognise it.
Tom – the offer of a beer if you are ever in the UK still stands. Maybe we could talk over Ryan et als recent rocking work on the Antarctic reconstructions? BTW hot day here today
….
Re: Ralph – totally agree on journalism losing its way. Where are the decent investigative stories coming from these days? Who is directing sunlight on all the dodgy deals going on all around? Who is pointing out the kings clothes are missing? Maybe one or two but mostly the media just wants to fill bandwidth for ratings and passes on whatever it can without so much as a once over – check out the number of articles on science that still don’t know what the units mean!
“many of you guys live in an alternate universe in which your basic political and philosophical orientations preclude acceptance of the very idea that humans could dominate global life support systems.”
Actually it’s my understanding of physics and its atrocious distortion by the ignorant or lying statist fearmongers which causes me to be libertarian .
Here’s the basic physics : CoSy.com/views/warm.htm . All life is built on CO2 + H2O plus ash . The Goreistas are anti-life in both their plans for immediate theft , and their effectively anti-green philosophy .
Tom, you have the patience of a sage. You’ve done well to keep this civil whilst being bombarded by ideologues (including one who puts ‘Ph. D.’ in his comment name – a truly astounding case of the banal).
I truly hope more people – of all ideological persuasions – give your post a read and reflect on it.
Tom: I think a large number of the skeptics who are visiting your site actually do want to get both sides of the equation. I know I do. And I take offence to people who say that the AGW proponents have the science on their side, just as I would expect that the AGW proponents are members of a religion.
I agree with Joe Monahan that there should be a debate about the science and the impact and treatment of the problem. I don’t tend to believe that AGW proponents are involved in a vast conspiracy to take over the world. But I do believe there has been a lot of shoddy science to this point. I visit RealClimate and Climate Audit regularly and the difference is striking. RealClimate is very defensive and will accept almost no criticism whatsoever. I don’t believe there is anything nefarious involved, but it does speak of the main problem – there are a number of climate scientists who write papers together, peer review each other and stick up for each other. That does not, in my opinion, lead to good scientific analysis. When problems are discovered, there is a great circling of the wagons and arm-waving, but little debate about the scientific method. It’s almost always “The science is settled” or “The models are getting better and better”. No one is prepared to debate the problems with the models or the problems with the temp data diverging and levelling off, when the models predicted rises.
But kudos for your attempt to analyse the two perspectives. I just wish more AGW proponents would take the time to consider the counter arguments.
Sorry – Last line in the first paragraph should have read “…just as I would expect AGW proponents would be offended at being accused of being members of a religion.” Something got deleted.
Mildred:
If you have a few minutes, take a look at this Powerpoint by Dr. Pielke Sr.. I find it to be a very measured and reasonable assessment of some of the issues regarding the AGW claims: http://www.climatesci.org/publications/presentations/PPT-111.pdf
He is not a “denier”, but he is a very well-respected scientist and he believes that while AGW is a problem, there are other serious climaate problems which should be investigated.
FYI, Tom, the traffic from CD is due to Morano’s link to your most recent Romm bash, not the blogroll listing. You might take a lesson from that, but regardless the outcome is very entertaining.
Re the Kristof column, I agree with the point about social games but would add a couple of other things to the mix, in particular the abilities to track the trajectories of thrown objects and predict the behavior of game and predators.
A further but rarer ability, the correct gauging of stocks and flows, seems to me to be at least as important a factor with respect to the climate issue as whether one is liberal or conservative. The fact that this ability appears to be present in a fairly small minority of humans and is unrelated to other aspects of intelligence goes a long way toward explaining the collective pickle we’re in. In case you’re not familar with John Sterman‘s work on this subject, see in particular his paper “Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter.” There’s a related on-line test, too.
Finally, this is an interesting albeit depressing effect.
Tom, I have a multi-linked comment in moderation. Thanks.
Mildred’s use of the term “denier” is a telltale sign of her failure to understand the crux of this discussion. Where in the context of any of my comments posted here have I suggested that I or any of the scientists I’ve cited “deny” that humans have an influence on the earth’s climate? Of course humans have an impact on the environment. I am simply unconvinced, and fail to see any evidence, that suggests humans have anything more than a minor impact on the earth’s climate. It’s reality folks.
But since Tom so admires my “impressive” list of quotations (even though he totally missed my point of the danger when journalists fail to seek the truth), I shall share the quotations I’ve collected from the Pielkes Sr. and Jr., who I consider climate realists.
– The failure of the IPCC Report to broaden its perspective (beyond CO2) reinforces the conclusion that this document is intended to provide support for energy policy changes, rather than a comprehensive assessment of the role of humans within the climate system. -– Roger Pielke Sr., University of Colorado climatologist
– We need to seek to reduce our human increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2, but it is just one concern, and not even the dominant climate change issue, much less the dominant environmental issue. -– Roger Pielke Sr.
– Climate science today is fully politicized. — Roger Pielke Jr., head of the University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research
– Policymakers cannot be expected to impose upon their constituents discomfort and/or pain and expect to stay in office. So we see a lot of hand waving, talk of long term targets and timetables, emphasis on personal actions, while (greenhouse gas) emissions continue to increase. — Roger Pielke, Jr.
– If global cooling over the next few decades is consistent with model predictions, then so too is pretty much anything and everything under the sun. — Roger Pielke Jr.
– In an honest and balanced presentation of what we know about the climate system, the focus exclusively on the radiative forcing of CO2 is a significant scientific error. — Roger Pielke Sr.
– Until, and unless the climate science community returns to the proper scientific method of examining the climate system, policymakers will continue to be fed erroneous information. Only poor policy decisions can result due to this failure. — Roger Pielke Sr.
Its more I think that there are larger things in this universe that control the earths life support system, like the sun, and the structure of the solar system.
Ralph and Tom – thought you might like this link re: state of play in journalism:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/5/29/why-are-newspapers-going-out-of-business.html
Steve: Just FYI, Morano linked to this post, not to the Romm thing (as far as I know). That’s why we’re having this blog party.
Steve: Thank you for the links. Several will be very helpful in the online course for journalists I am creating for Poynter’s News U.
And many thanks too for everyone else who has tried to be positive and helpful by providing resources for me.
Tom, in the first line of this post you refer to a spike a couple of days prior, which timing works for your latest Romm screed.
Re resources, also have a look at CRED‘s material.
FYI all, while Pielke Sr. and Jr. are by no means denialists, Morano did put them in his denialist blogroll (as distinct from the separate non-denialist one where CEJ is listed along with the likes of RealClimate). Does he know something?
What interesting article, but where took information?
You never did have any luck with thumbsuckers.
Tom,
I enjoyed your post and your humor throughout.
Might I suggest for a future post, a step-by-step illustrated summary of how to fill out a subscription form for a real, peer-reviewed science journal, like Science or Nature?
jg