As some of you know I’ve got a blog dedicated to examining the tactics and dialogue
of unidirectional climate science skeptics. Over the past year a good deal of my energy has been going
to dissecting the talks and writings of a character from California who Anthony Watts seems to have discovered and promoted
into one of the rising stars of the climate science is a hoax crowd.
Heartland Institute interview:
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/05/landscapesandcycles-debate-index.html
Talk to the IEEE:
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/02/index-landscapesandcycles-mr-jim-steele.html
This Mr. Steele claims he agree's on the science that greenhouse gases really do behave as atmospheric insulation -
but in the next breath he'll ridicule the notion that this warming will cause any problems,
while insinuating that atmospheric scientists don't know what they are talking about…
because… as he tells us:
landscape changes and natural cycles are more powerful than the global heat distribution engine they exist within.
A truly bizarre notion that only a politically motivated mind, removed from any interest in constructive learning could have
cobbled together. It's tailor made for an apathetic crowd that only wants assurances and who totally reject learning
and self skepticism in favor of guarding their preconceptions and faith-based mentality at all costs.
Since this man wears his San Francisco State University emeritus status like a badge of authority
(he was director of their Sierra Nevada Field Station for quite a while)
I though that confronting the administration over at SFSU with a list of his deliberate malicious misrepresentations
and worse his tactic of slandering a number of honorable honest wildlife scientists was unacceptable,
might bring some constructive results. Instead, I've achieved little more than getting on their Ignore List.
Yesterday I wrote a post where I invite discussion over here - not that I'm holding my breath -
so I figure I at least need to start a thread on the topic. Here's the intro to that WUWTW blog post.
Question: Best liar wins? re CC/Steele Debate
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/05/bestliar-wins-ccsteeledebate.html
Seems no one wants to get close to the touchy question of professors/instructors having a duty to honestly represent
the scientific work of others.
Apparently outright lying about the work of scientists is considered a sacred part of the academic process.
I still can't get my mind around that logic. Admittedly I'm on the outside of academia looking in,
so if anyone within the process would care to correct me or enlighten my interpretation please
(If not here at WUWTW, how about an independent venue [inserted a link to CFI]).
After all, constructive learning is what this is supposed to be all about.
What I find even less comprehensible:
How is it that maliciously slandering honest professional scientists falls under the same acceptance?
Or is it a blind eye?
So I've gone back to reviewing and learning some more
while pondering the fundamental requirements for a constructive* rational debate -
as opposed to the politicians lawyerly debate to win at all costs regardless of fidelity to the truth.* that would be dedicated to learning.I have to wonder what the hell, has all of modern society accepted the myth that the best liar deserves to win? ...
On the surface, lying is considered to be taboo. But, in reality, lying is a mainstay of human society. There are little, socially accepted lies of politeness, and support of others. There are (only slightly less) socially acceptable lies of exploitation, used to gain an advantage in everyday one on one interactions. There are big lies of broader social exploitation. There are the big lies inherent in religions. There is the big lie, that lying is socially unacceptable. The last being proven by our general passivity in response to the ubiquitous presence of lies in human interactions.
Personally. I detest lying, especially with those lies put forth by liars who are champions of the big exploitive lies. But that’s just me.
On the surface, lying is considered to be taboo. But, in reality, lying is a mainstay of human society. There are little, socially accepted lies of politeness, and support of others. There are (only slightly less) socially acceptable lies of exploitation, used to gain an advantage in everyday one on one interactions. There are big lies of broader social exploitation. There are the big lies inherent in religions. There is the big lie, that lying is socially unacceptable. The last being proven by our general passivity in response to the ubiquitous presence of lies in human interactions.
Personally. I detest lying, especially with those lies put forth by liars who are champions of the big exploitive lies. But that's just me.
Very nice summation Tim!
Puts the whole question into a more realistic perspective…
Helped jar me outta from my full focus on the AGW dialogue.
and now I'm more depressed than ever.
(Although catching up on the insane fiasco that is the Oakland Bay Bridge - putting fancy facade considerations above engineering realities -
probably helped that process along quite a bit.)
Lying may allow you to win sometimes but you go through pants like crazy.
Usually you make more sense than that.
You and me may piss our pants lying, but not those folks.
Look at that, Marc Morono - the bigger the bullshit the prouder and louder he screams it.
To him it's all a big game.
May the biggest ego win.
And he's a role model for the likes of Jim.
Lying may allow you to win sometimes but you go through pants like crazy.
Usually you make more sense than that.
You and me may piss our pants lying, but not those folks.
Look at that, Marc Morono - the bigger the bullshit the prouder and louder he screams it.
To him it's all a big game.
May the biggest ego win.
And he's a role model for the likes of Jim.
Sorry. Was just lending a little levity to a serious subject (Liar liar pants on fire was what I had in mind). It is frustrating when someone can distort the facts to their advantage and the public swallows it. A large part of the climate change denial has sunk to this level unfortunately. If they can't win the debate on the facts they make up new ones.
There has been some study of this sort of thing that shows it often requires a different approach to win the public debate You can't win with facts alone. The average person is not sophisticated enough to know who has the facts and who's pants are on fire. You have to paint a picture and tell a story that reaches people. Often times its the better story teller that wins not the better liar.
Lying may allow you to win sometimes but you go through pants like crazy.
Good one, MacGyver. I got the reference right off. CC just didn't get the "pants-on-fire" association as you are generally so consistently objective and firmly rational in your posts. I like a bit of humor, as you may have noticed.
On the surface, lying is considered to be taboo. But, in reality, lying is a mainstay of human society. There are little, socially accepted lies of politeness, and support of others. There are (only slightly less) socially acceptable lies of exploitation, used to gain an advantage in everyday one on one interactions. There are big lies of broader social exploitation. There are the big lies inherent in religions. There is the big lie, that lying is socially unacceptable. The last being proven by our general passivity in response to the ubiquitous presence of lies in human interactions.
Personally. I detest lying, especially with those lies put forth by liars who are champions of the big exploitive lies. But that's just me.
Very nice summation Tim!
Puts the whole question into a more realistic perspective…
Helped jar me outta from my full focus on the AGW dialogue.
and now I'm more depressed than ever.
Yeah, I can see how recognizing what liars we humans are can be depressing. But we also are often driven to seek the truth. Re: the AGW issue, I think that the lies are oh-so-frustratingly-slowly being eroded.