47 thoughts on “The Debate Invitation: Politely worded.”

1. It should be no surprise to anybody here that it is a major insult to warmist scientists to be placed on equal footing with skeptic scientists.

2. . . .it ain’t too bad in the winter either if you like X/C skiing or snow shoe-ing.

   It’s unfortunate that someone representing the Union of Concerned Scientists couldn’t make it. While there is room to debate the magnitude of the man-made warming or the skill of the models, I think there are topics that “sceptics” and “warmists” can agree on. They may not have been able to persuade many in attendance, but there would have been some that would look deeper into the issues — and that is a start.

   Tim — from Wisconsin

3. Tobis: I say that being a mother (or father) of nine is the opposite of a qualification for taking a substantive public position on a complex matter.

   plus he’s got 1000 nonfiction books and is a father of zero

   and they wonder why they are losing the debate 🙂

4. FWIW, I don’t think Ms. Simac has stated anywhere that she would personally participate in any climate change-related discussion. It seems she’s merely a contact person to get people together for the event. So Dr. Tobis’ snide and pathetic attempt to denigrate her is not even legitimate. A mom of 9 kids can’t possibly handle the intricately complex task of sending out a few invitation emails?

5. “Fair and balanced” is the hint you are looking for. Just sayin.

6. Re: gt (Feb 2 20:26), No. Ms Simac never claimed any expertise in climate science.

   Luis–
   How can Ms. Simac’s use of “fair and balanced” excuse Michael Tobis’s utterly rude denigration of her intellect at his blog? Of his complete mischaracterization of the role of data in science?

   Whether or not she said fair and balanced, MT’s response is still specifically tailored to alienate the group of people who he would like to motivate to action.

7. I understand the pro-AGW experts declining to attend. Right now they’re on the defensive; it seems every day a new report is popping up detailing problems with the IPCC report or seminal studies on the Urban Heat Island effect in China. Now is NOT the time to go to the frozen north and argue their position. Best to hunker down and wait for the storm to pass, and debate with the tattered shreds of data they have left.

   Also, I agree with Eric’s comment; the idea that skeptics would be given equal billing is still insulting to them. They’re not used to the skeptic side being taken seriously.

   And, seriously, Wisconsin? A high school? I doubt they think that’s an appropriate venue for such an important topic. They’re important people, after all.

   In the interests of full disclosure, I live in Madison Wisconsin. Wisconsin rocks.

8. How can Ms. Simac’s use of “fair and balanced” excuse Michael Tobis’s utterly rude denigration of her intellect at his blog? Of his complete mischaracterization of the role of data in science?

   It doesn’t. I had said so in your last post. Tobis’ post was clearly written too soon to the event, his blood still boiling or something. Perhaps it’s always boiling, too much coffee maybe? Anyhoo, it doesn’t bode well for his quest of course.

   What I was hinting at is that there may well be a “type” of a kind of writing that an experienced person in being cornered to a similar trap recognizes in spades. I’m no expert by any means, and it may well be confirmation bias, but the bit “fair and balance” would be enough for me.

9. Luis Dias,

   What exactly do the words ‘fair and balanced’ trigger in your mind?

10. If your a snowmobiler Eagle River would be a great place to be in January.

    http://video.discovermediaworks.com/eagleriver/player.htm

11. the request actually is much more polite than i expected.

    on the other hand, it contains enough hints (fair and balanced, Dr. Willie Soons and Dr. David Legates, live to see the consequences of such theories and legislation on climate change, Northwoods Patriots) about the nature of the event.

    i would also expect that most scientists could google her name and would end up on her pretty wild website, promoting her book. (she could perhaps team up with Tom and Steve?)

    Simac was especially outraged about a reply that said:

    “opposing side was paid off and presenting lies.”

    sorry, but with Soons and Legates, this simply looks like someone told her the truth? (how anybody could associate with the George Marshall institute without expecting to lose all credibility is beyond me.)

12. I have shown this to a few folks who are skeptical about skeptics.

    Go to RealClimate or to Stoat, and there are no links to ClimateAudit or to WattsUpWithThat or to the Blackboard.

    Then go to ClimateAudit or to WattsUpWithThat or to the Blackboard, and they all have links to
    RealClimate and most to Stoat (William Connolley).

    Why are the alarmists so unwilling to have any polite discussion?

    And then a recent Nature editorial used the word “denialist” about 8 times and never used the word “skeptic”. It is very troubling to me when folks who represent themselves as scientists resort to such childish behavior.

13. Bet one quatloo not one warmista will go. Why don’t you go Lucia? As a lukewarmer! just joking

14. The response by Tobias to the invitation seems way over the top. Therefore, why? There appeared to be a lot of “rage” or “vehemence” that came out of absolutely nowhere. Why? I am sincerely asking. It as if by inviting AGW supporting scientists to debate science it caused some kind of blasphemy to be committed against something which cannot be allowed to be unquestioned. Why? How could someone who calls themselves a scientist say he can not be questioned? If he cannot be questioned then it isn’t science he is doing. If the AGW climate scientist’s product cannot be questioned then what the heck is it?

    John

15. Lest anyone forget. When Pachauri was put forward the Union of concerned scientists went to bat against him.
    Their charge; he was a BUSHIE.

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270&filename=1019513684.txt

    According to a report by Associated Press today (appended
    below), Dr. Rajendra Pachauri was elected as Chair of the
    IPCC at a plenary meeting in Geneva. As you would be aware
    from our earlier SSI alerts of the past several weeks, this
    follows on from intense lobbying of the US government by the
    fossil fuel industry to remove Dr. Robert Watson as Chair.
    Although reports from Geneva are still sketchy, our sources
    on the ground tell us that there was intense behind-the-
    scenes lobbying by Saudi Arabia, with assistance from Don
    Pearlman — a well known oil and gas lobbyist with strong
    connections to industry-backed organizations opposed to
    climate change mitigation. Through their maneuvering, the
    co-chair compromise approach — comprised of former chair
    Dr. Robert Watson and Dr. Pachauri — was not considered.
    As a result of this election, there is considerable concern
    in the climate science and environmental communities —
    reinforced by the intensive lobbying from fossil fuel
    interests on this decision — that the Bush Administration’s
    lack of support for former IPCC Chair Dr. Robert Watson
    signals a more general lack of support for the IPCC as a
    credible international scientific assessment process that
    provides governments with sound information on climate
    science, impacts, and solutions.
    By supporting Dr. Pachauri for primarily political purposes,
    the Bush Administration has seriously threatened the
    scientific credibility of the IPCC process. The conservative
    fossil fuel interests should be exposed for their role in
    influencing the US government’s stance on this issue, and
    the IPCC process must remain a scientifically credible and
    non-politicized process..

16. Ernie.

    They believe that by talking to skeptics or with skeptics they will somehow “legitamize” them

    Think of the isreali’s refusing to talk to the palestinians
    Think of the Chinese refusing to talk to the Tiawanese
    Think of the bloods refusing to talk to the crips
    Think of the US refusing to talk to Iran.
    Think of boys thinking that girls are icky.

    This is jingoism.

    Not all believers in AGW are like this. Judith Curry posts on CA.
    And Lucia and I talk to skeptics all the time. She bakes cookies for them.

17. hey lucia, I asked to join Micheals group a while back. I dont think they will let me into their club house. Can I come bake cookies with you?

18. hehe:

    Best thing yet!!! In attendance were some who supported global warming. I commend them for coming, especially my neighbor. He stopped by today to thank us and let us know that he had tried to get others to attend. He too was embarrassed by the lack of attendance from those in our community and for the first time is considering the thought that perhaps the motives behind all of this climate change may not be rooted in true goodness. Most important was the handshake we shared and the step we agreed to take to mend the bridges that have divided us here in our small town. Left/Right is a tool that is being used to conquer America. Get rid of that and the prospects for regaining the strength and integrity we once had will be good.

19. “They believe that by talking to skeptics or with skeptics they will somehow “legitamize” them

    Think of the isreali’s refusing to talk to the palestinians
    Think of the Chinese refusing to talk to the Tiawanese
    Think of the bloods refusing to talk to the crips
    Think of the US refusing to talk to Iran.
    Think of boys thinking that girls are icky.”

    Think of debating AIDS denialists in South Africa. Only 330,000 deaths, though.

20. Oh, and the real story here is how desperate Soon and Legaties are to get into a debate. Should tell you something.

    By the way, it looks like the Northwoods blog had a “GLOBAL WARMING HOAX” post back in November, so maybe if you want scientists to come to your debate, you shouldn’t call them all hoaxers.

21. Last spring, the World Federation of Scientists invited about 10 different IPCC-type scientists to participate at a session on water feedbacks (in which Lindzen was participating) of their Erice conference in late August . All declined.

22. What the heck is the World Federation of Scientists?

23. To answer my own question:

    http://www.federationofscientists.org/

24. “Aaron Huertas is the Press Secretary for the Union of Concerned Scientists. His initial reaction appears to have been,”

    “The organization is Tea Partyish. Anyone receive similar invitations? I find it hard to believe Legates and Soon are casually hopping off to Wisconsin to participate in a debate in a highschool.”

    Just goes to show that the Union of “Concerned Scientists” really aren’t – concerned that is (except about themselves).

    And this whole affair just confirms for all to see that the AGW camp is comprised of arrogant, self-absorbed, and thoughtless individuals.

25. Boris wrote:

    “Oh, and the real story here is how desperate Soon and Legaties are to get into a debate. Should tell you something.”

    1) What is the evidence that Soon and Legaties are “desperate” to get into a debate?

    2) And if they ARE desperate to debate the issue, what is the “something” that we are supposed to infer from that? That they know their arguments are wrong and that AGW is true? Is that what you are trying to argue?

26. Re: Luis Dias (Feb 2 21:19),
    I can see where those words might put off one of the invited scientists. But I’ve always thought they had a right to decline and that we can’t assume declining means hiding. 🙂

    Re: Earle Williams (Feb 2 22:03),
    The words ‘fair and balanced’ do evoke the O’Reilly Factor. They didn’t used to, but they do now.
    Re: steven mosher (Feb 3 01:33),

    hey lucia, I asked to join Micheals group a while back. I dont think they will let me into their club house. Can I come bake cookies with you?

    You were discussed here http://groups.google.com/group/planet30/browse_thread/thread/52e648235be0eb91/213e528be642d20c?lnk=gst&q=mosher#213e528be642d20c

    Michael Tobis
    View profile
    This one is interesting: steven mosher requested to join the planet3.0 group and is awaiting approval. Hi Steve! Good luck with that one. mt
    More options Jan 21, 8:40 am
    From: Michael Tobis
    Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:40:37 -0600
    Local: Thurs, Jan 21 2010 8:40 am
    Subject: more requests to join group
    Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
    This one is interesting:

    steven mosher requested to join the planet3.0 group
    and is awaiting approval.

    Hi Steve! Good luck with that one.

    mt

    Boris-
    I can’t criticize scientists for declining the invitation. I would be reluctant to go travel to the frozen north on January 31, and even if that were not so, if invited as late as Jan 5, I could easily have obligations that made it impossible for me to attend events I was enthusiastic about. (Heck, here in Illinois, I know campaign volunteers who spent the weekend phoning for their favorite candidate. None of them would have taken this particular weekend to drive the N. Wisconsin to give a talk to 150 people.)

    But Michael Tobis claims to be trying to figure out how to improve science communication and how to say people. He was not an invited speaker, but chose to write a post that is tailored to thwart his own stated goals. That’s the point I am trying to communicate.

    Assuming MT really truly wants to sit down and think of what the groups he calls “us” could have done better he should start by looking at what they could have done better when Aaron Huertas recieved his invitation and informed his planet 3.0 group. They had a lot of optoins at that point. Reading the thread, some even recognized that these events can be used to create political speech similar to what Simac wrote at PJ media. Did they brainstorm useful responses? Not on the planet 3.0 site. What they did there was bitch and moan. But if they’d really wanted to figure out how to respond, they could have said: Let’s focus on thise event (and ones like it.)

    Whey don’t we:
    1) Consider sending a letter around advising scientists to respond politely. If they decline, do so by saying “Sorry, it’s such short notice! I’m busy.” The scientists should learn “I’m busy” is always the correct response. (It has the benefit of also often being true.)
    2) Consider suggesting scientists tell the organizer they support the notion of the debates. Unfortunately, that weekend won’t work for them personally. But if the group has funds to cover travel, hotel, and dinner and a small honorarium to cover the costs for the weekend day, their post doc or ph.d. candidate student might be interested. Why not invite them? (You can always explain that graduate students are cash strapped. Everyone knows it’s true.) If paid $200 plus travel, meals and a hotel, a cash strapped graduate student and their spouse might be happy to spend a weekend cross-country skiing in Northern Wisconsin!

    These are things one could do if they are actually trying to reach out and communicate. But… alas… nope.

27. “Consider suggesting scientists tell the organizer they support the notion of the debates.”

    I think most climate scientists are coming around to the idea that debates are ineffective–at least in their most common form. The structure of a debate allows for skeptics to simply poke holes and cast some doubt. Plugging those holes usually takes more time than is allotted and allows the opposition to put scientists on the defensive. And since some skeptics take certain liberties with the truth, this makes a defense even more difficult, since you are basically calling you opponent a liar or an idiot (and though they may be, audiences tend to see pointing out such things as rude. At the very least, it makes it uncomfortable for them.)

    In addition, climate science itself is many times anti-intuitive. Just look at some of the common lay arguments against AGW: CO2 is only .038% of the atmosphere, how can it be warming when last winter was cold? and etc. Skeptics can exploit the audience’s “intuition” to their advantage (i.e. That sun sure is a hot ball of gas, ain’t it?”). Given this structural disadvantage, even someone trained in rhetoric and debate would struggle. And few scientists have much skill at rhetoric. A grad student would get eaten alive.

    I do like the letter idea. I would emphasize in it the wide range of the consensus among scientific bodies–the best lay argument in favor of AGW because it puts the skeptics in a position of defense and having to argue either that most scientists are dumb or there is a global conspiracy. I’d also invite the skeptics to present a paper or submit to a journal whenever they get done with the “debate”.

28. i hope you can understand this LOL
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/03/the-hockey-stick-and-milankovitch-theory/

29. Stephan (Comment#31871) February 3rd, 2010 at 8:53 am

    i hope you can understand this LOL

    More of the usual “If I can’t understand, it must be fraud” BS. That trick is getting pretty old now, but it still brings the punters in. Get off your backsides and do your own publishing if you think Mann is wrong, no need for 100 hundred variations on snide accusations and misrepresentations.

30. “More of the usual ‘If I can’t understand, it must be fraud’ BS”

    bugs,

    I submit that you don’t understand it either, and are simply chanting along with your tribe.

    Andrew

31. John Whitman (Comment#31834) February 3rd, 2010 at 1:17 am

    “The response by Tobias to the invitation seems way over the top. Therefore, why?”

    We all want to have a sense of purpose to our lives and leave some sort of legacy.

    Being skeptical about the state of global warming science or the potential impacts to global warming science is received by many in the AGW community as an attack on their sense of purpose.

    Mr. Tobias’s response is based on pure ego protection. His main argument was to attack how Ms. Simac has chosen to give her life purpose by bearing children.

    The ‘ego protection’ arguments put forth by many in the AGW community is exactly what skeptics with insufficient knowledge to evaluate the science hear. If the scientist doubts his science, as demonstrated by resorting to EGO protection, then I must as well.

32. Sod,

    Attempting to show that someone does not have a valid point or valid point of view merely due to their associations is a fail tactic for discrediting someone, unless you can prove that A:) that person clearly expouses the beliefs of the association in question and B:) that the association in question has been pretty thoroughly discredited.

    Now, anyone assoicated with the IPCC seems to meet both criteria A:) and criteria B:) fairly well lately, but even saying that every IPCC “scientist” should be automatically assumed to be discredited is probably a stretch.

    Both sides of the climate debate tend to descend into attacking the funding and associations of participants in the debate, when what is needed is good data and good evidence presented in a respectful and scientific manner by both sides. So far, it seems that one side is less willing to do this than the other. The end result of this is that at least right now, the skeptics appear to the general public appear to be more open and more willing to share their data and their views, while the warmist side seems to be getting the reputation of saying, “we are right, we have always been right, and it is pointless to condescend to debate the subject with clearly inferior beings.”

    That position just turns the general populace off to the message, whether the message is indeed correct or not.

33. Boris,

    I find your accusation that “certain skeptics take liberty with the truth” as somewhat laughable, given all of the evidence we have seen recently of scientists who support AGW theory taking quite a few “liberties with the truth”.

    I do not deny that some skeptics do have the fault you describe, but to unilaterally ascribe that fault to one side of the issue is clearly incorrect given a fair-sized mountain of recent evidence.

34. Boris,
    Your argument is circular and ridiculous (and annoying). Is there some sort of perfect-debate-dimension where neither side bends the truth to its own purpose or never employs some sort of logical fallacy to advance their point of view? Are you saying that the pro-AGW side can’t win because the skeptical argument is so weak? Are you saying that only pro-AGW scientists are not good debators (that seems to be what you are saying, since Soon and Legates are scientists and were willing to debate)?

    With regards to the political leanings of the party holding the debate, why should it matter? Pro-AGW scientists are too delicate to appear before hostile audiences?
    Maybe if Michael Tobis expanded his associations a little, he might realize that it is possible for women to reproduce and have high-level brain function at the same time. Or is he only trying to convince lonely old men who are smarter than me (and football players).

35. “Is there some sort of perfect-debate-dimension where neither side bends the truth to its own purpose or never employs some sort of logical fallacy to advance their point of view?”

    If your argument is that everyone bends the truth in a debate, then that is pretty good argument against debates in general. I’d tend to agree, btw.

    “Are you saying that the pro-AGW side can’t win because the skeptical argument is so weak?”

    No, the pro-AGW side has a more difficult time winning because A) they are on the defensive from the beginning and B) the skeptics arguments appear stronger than they actually are to a lay audience.

    “Are you saying that only pro-AGW scientists are not good debators (that seems to be what you are saying, since Soon and Legates are scientists and were willing to debate)?”

    As compared to the average skeptic scientist, yes, pro-AGW scientists will be worse. Skeptics have far more experience writing op eds and engaging the media, and probably spend a good deal more time in preparation for a debate (given that most of them are emeritus and/or publish quite lightly).

    “With regards to the political leanings of the party holding the debate, why should it matter? Pro-AGW scientists are too delicate to appear before hostile audiences?”

    I made no comment on the particular audience. However, engaging in a debate put on by an organization that seems to proclaim AGW a hoax is probably wasted time: a risk without any reward.

36. Alright! We got bugs and Boris both going on this thread! Grab some popcorn!

    I nominate this for the winning line (from Boris):

    “Think of debating AIDS denialists in South Africa. Only 330,000 deaths, though”

    Yea, I can see where that is a lot like the relative contribution of anthropogenic CO2 to the climate system…

    I think Godwin should be worried about the competition.

37. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of Boris’ Law:

    “I am so intransigent that anyone who takes a position in opposition to my position in a debate is equivalent to someone who denies the existence of a disease that has claimed millions of lives worldwide”

38. “I am so intransigent that anyone who takes a position in opposition to my position in a debate is equivalent to someone who denies the existence of a disease that has claimed millions of lives worldwide”

    Are you illiterate? The question is whether to debate anti-science people in a popular format. Such a strategy failed miserably in South Africa because it legitimized the AIDS denialists. I agree being an AIDS denialist is much more absurd than being a climate skeptic. The point is that engaging absolutely DOES legitimize a viewpoint, and if the viewpoint is incredibly stupid but somehow comforting (hello Marc Morano!) then it could spread and cause damage.

39. I’ll stand pat.

40. Steven Mosher,

    “Think of the isreali’s refusing to talk to the palestinians”

    Sorry, they not only talked to them but signed treaties with them which the “Palestinians” immediately broke by declaring an Intifada.

    You do realise that until the mid 1960’s the term Palestinian typically referred to JEWISH residences of a particular area of the Middle East??

    Lesson, be careful with your examples when you are short of details.

41. Re: Boris (Feb 3 05:50),

    “Think of debating AIDS denialists in South Africa. Only 330,000 deaths, though”.

    Think what may have happened if the DDT scare was actually debated. So I’ll see your 330,000 deaths and raise you tens of millions of deaths from malaria and related diseases.

42. Kuhnkat,

    Yes I know.. I should have worded that as ‘ think of those isreali’s who refuse.”

43. Boris

    Let me give you a clue. If you believe that somebody is incapable of rational discourse, do not insult them. That’s just stupid, you moron.

    ( hehe).. I left you a funny comeback….

44. “Get off your backsides and do your own publishing if you think Mann is wrong”

    Where? in a mann and jones and schneider controlled journal?

    Seriously, I had my car painted last week. I used to paint cars long ago, but now I make way more money. So I pay people to paint my car. I went to pick my car up and the paint job sucked. I asked to see the charges. They didnt have a record of the kind of paint they used. But I could tell it just sucked. When I looked at the labor charges the hours were all wrong. Anyway, when I pointed out these errors in the paint job and questioned their documentation, the guy blathered on about his years painting cars. and then he said, if you dont like my paint job, paint the car yourself. He had no idea how to close on my objections. We could have come to some agreement, but he was very defensive.

    Sorry thats off topic

45. Well organized debates may not be an optimal way of getting at the truth.I like a bit about what boris says about the structural disadvantage or the AGW side. Affirmative always has a tough time. So when arguing affirmative its always best to move the goal posts in. Like Lukewarmers do. dont aim to win. aim to create common ground.

46. “Think what may have happened if the DDT scare was actually debated. So I’ll see your 330,000 deaths and raise you tens of millions of deaths from malaria and related diseases.”

    Ah, the right wing DDT ban myth. Good one.

47. “Let me give you a clue. If you believe that somebody is incapable of rational discourse, do not insult them. That’s just stupid, you moron.”

    I am certainly not arguing for insulting people. That’s just for blog comments, you douche.

    “Where? in a mann and jones and schneider controlled journal?”

    The mean men won’t let you publish your papers, so you don’t even write them? Here’s a tip: If someone is keeping you out of journals for political reasons, make them reject you over and over then publish your brilliant paper on the internet.

    But we know that awful skeptic papers get published all the time so your claim that you can’t get published is weak, weak, weak.

Comments are closed.