In some sort of deluded attempt to do… something, a commenter here, and one at Bishop Hill have gotten it into their heads to create metaphors that go like this:
This is ridiculous. Obviously climate scientists have not been gang raped. Climate science is still funded. Climate scientists still have jobs. Met office climate scientists got paid to travel to a vacation island in Turkey where they were proposing projects that would permit them to draw salaries while fixing any problems in the land surface temperature product CRU.
All this nothing-like-gang-rape treatment has been by some loss in public trust, some critical reports in newspapers, and louder harsher criticism at blogs. A very few climate scientists most closely associated with apparent misbehavior evidenced in the CRU-emails are being questioned and criticized publicly. As far as I’m aware, even these people are still drawing salaries.
To suggest the treatment of climate scientists as a whole, or even the climate scientists most implicated in climategate or glaciergate is an insult to any woman who had been date raped, raped while walking down the street or gang raped under any circumstances what-so-ever.
For those of you who want to read an example of the nearly unbelievable attempt to equate treatment of climate scientists to gang rape, read this comment, which begins with a quote indicating my response to the Neven’s earlier attempt to inject introduce this metapohr into the dialog (bold mine):
Re: Neven (Feb 25 08:38),
“Get a grip. Climate science was not gang raped. Want a better metaphor? A few got their hands slapped for not admitting they broke the cookie jar.â€
That’s not a better metaphor. This isn’t about hands getting slapped, this is about undermining the public’s trust in science.
My metaphor again:
1.
a) Of course Jodie Foster was drunk and acted in a provocative way.
b) Of course some climate scientists developed a bunker mentality and didn’t dish out their data to people who accused them of fraud.
2.
a) Jodie Foster gets raped.
b) Public trust in climate science gets undermined.
3.
a) The guys who were actively involved in the rape say it’s Foster own fault and their lawyer swings as much mud he can.
b) The guys who were actively involved in undermining public trust in climate science say it’s the scientists’ own fault and right-wing press and politicians grab and keep hold of media attention spreading a lot of distortion and disinformation.
4.
a) Jodie Foster needs a lot of time to recover and clear her name.
b) Action to mitigate and adapt to the consequences of AGW is delayed by several years.Jodie Foster = climate science
raping = undermining public trust
claiming not to have any responsibility = claiming not to have any responsibilityLet me guess, the next step in the word-game will probably be: When did McIntyre or Watts ever claim they didn’t have any responsibility for the loss of the public’s trust in climate science?
Wow! raping = undermining public trust? Seriously?! Get a grip.
Let me point out a few things:
- With regard to this: raping = undermining public trust Women have an absolute right not to be raped whether or not they dance provocatively in bars. While public trust is a desirable thing, climate scientists do not have an absolute right to the public trust. Not gaining the public trust or losing it bears absolutely no resemblance to being gang raped. Nothing. Rien de tout. Bupkis.
- With regard to this: claiming not to have any responsibility = claiming not to have any
When assessing a claim that one is or is not responsible for ill consequences, it actually matters whether the ill consequence is either a foreseeable or justifiable consequence of doing something.
Getting drunk and dancing in a public bar does not make one responsible for getting raped with no bystanders calling the police. Men don’t have a right to rape women in these circumstances, bystanders don’t have a right to not phone the police, and, (thank the dear lord) this consequence is very, very rare event. So, being gang raped is neither foreseeable or justifiable consequence for attractive women who get drunk and dance provocatively in bars.
Being caught evading FOIs, colluding to evade FOI’s or justifying this evasion on the part of your friends while publicly spouting rhetoric that you are all for transparency, sharing data, yada, yada, yada does make one responsible for losing the trust of others. So does making mistakes in favor of overstating the case toward melting glaciers when it’s your responsibility to not make such mistakes. So does denying you could have made such mistakes etc.
Losing someone’s trust when they discover you have behaved in an untrustworthy manner is both foreseeable and justifiable.
Let’s look at another analogy– one that will never be turned into a movie.
Suppose, the Jodie Foster character had gotten drunk, danced provocatively, and the next day, she discovered to her horror that people had gossiped about her. Becoming a source of gossip would have been her fault. People are allowed to think ill of anyone who gets drunk and dances provocatively if that happens to be their opinion and they are allowed to share their opinions with others. (You, in turn, are allowed to think less of them for gossiping or for being stick in the mud prudes.)
Had the Jodie Foster character had claimed the gossip wasn’t her fault, you know what I might say? She was wrong.
I would further advise her that if she wanted to gain the esteem of that particular group of people, then she might have to start dressing like a nun and be seen doing novenas. On the other hand, if she didn’t care one way or the other about their esteem and respect or the gossip (and I would not have) she would have a perfect right to continue getting drunk and dancing provocatively in bars. In which case, she could grow up, put on her big girl pants and learn to ignore the gossip.
Every individual member of the public has a right to judge whether or not someone does not meet their standards of conduct; they are allowed to share their opinion with others. This sharing of opinions about someone is manifestly not gang raping them!
For those of you wondering if this “Jodie-Foster-gang-rape” metaphor is circulating, visit Bishop Hill; search for Frank O’Dwyer’s comments. (Update for clarification: 2:09 Frank only posts a short skirt metaphor with no specific allusion to Jodie Foster saying
Your argument here is not much better than ‘she shouldn’t have worn that short skirt’.
)
Look guys: It’s fine to try to create metaphors and use analogies.
Making utterly idiotic ones like “Climate scientists losing public trust” == “Jodie Foster being gang raped after getting drunk and dancing provocatively” is likely to make rational people think you are nutso. If that’s what you want, go right ahead and keep posting stooopid analogies. If you prefer to sound sane and balanced, you might want to find better analogies and metaphors.
Update
I was mistaken: Frank O’Dwyer only used this metaphor:
Your argument here is not much better than ‘she shouldn’t have worn that short skirt’.
with the allusion left to the imagination.
hyperbole alert:
.
lucia making a lot of wind over two blog comments!
.
as i said before, i would try NOT to make a comparison to rape.
.
but lucia is seriously misrepresenting what is happening to scientists at the moment. they get hate mail and sceptics are trying to push them from their jobs.
The warmists have been calling their opponents holocaust deniers, Nazi appeasers, Nazis, treasonous, and unpatriotic for so long, that some of them have forgotten it’s rhetoric. Gang-rape is just another overblown analogy to add to the pile. Being criticised (even if they threatened with job loss – but not one has actually lost their job) is hardly equivalent or comparable with rape.
I also find these analogies kind of scary. If you’re saving the planet from a holocaust, or being raped, use of violence could seem acceptable, normal or to be expected. In comment 91, here, for example, tamino predicts French revolution style violence against skeptics – http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2806
sod,
I think Lucia is quite correct. In this case, she’s just observing and drawing reasonable conclusions.
That you are trying to dismiss yet even more stupidity by AGW Believers just confirms everything a skeptic might think about AGW Believers.
Andrew
Sod,
First, you have difficulties counting. Second, the previous comment thread, your assessment of Neven’s analogy was;
The analogy is not fine. It’s insulting to rape victims, horrifying, while also ridiculous and absurd.
I saw this analogy posted and at another blog. When called on the analogy, both Neven and Frank O’Dwyer are defending their analogy, you supported Neven by suggesting it’s fine. Evidently, the fact that you wouldn’t “normally” make the comparison to rape and things that are nothing like rape, doesn’t seem to have prevented you from endorsing Neven’s doing so in this specific instance.
FWIW: Someone who is powerless to push you from your job trying to do so is not equivalent to gang rape.
If you or Neven want to complain that it’s unfair for bloggers to post comments saying that person X should be fired, say that. But claiming that climate scientists have been gang raped is utterly ridiculous.
Yes. If people make outragous claims like this in comments, I will promote those comments above the fold even if you, sod, think this is “making a lot of wind”.
i disagree lucia.
.
having 15 years of mail stolen, published on the web and used to push you from your job, does not have anything in common with gossip after a dance.
@sod: I won’t bother to correct the errors in your description of the events regarding the emails, but I understand your position now – Not gossip, therefore gang-rape.
Who could possibly disagree with that?
(My own position: Would be that post-dance gossip isn’t a good analogy either)
Is there anything wrong with me not even paying attention to this posed? I really can’t be arsed to weed through which side of things, you’re even on in the climate scientist gangraping. My brain just turns off, when this is the way the issue analysis is posed.
In all honestly, my response to this post was tl;dr.
What does this “push you from your job” complaint amount to, other than a notion that job-related malfeasance is not relevant to whether a person should be retained in the role?
These “scientists” have, as shown by their own words in the “stolen” emails, conspired to present an exaggerated case for the dangers of AGW by falsifying the presentation of data and suppressing the presentation of valid, contrary scientific evidence. They’ve also conspired to subvert FOI laws. They’ve also done demonstrably poor research and failed to correct their mistakes.
Maybe someone *ought to* push them from their jobs.
Sod–
I’m not saying my metaphor is great though.
But while Jones stepped down as director of CRU, I’m pretty sure he is still a professor. This is not exactly being fired. Certainly, few rape victims would think his treatment was equivalent to gang rape.
Hmmm…. let me brainstorm analogies. How about this:
Having 15 years of email stolen and posted on the web strikes me as more like, storing an unlidded garbage can full of meat scraps and your diary containing deep-dark secrets then being surprised when a band of roaming coyotes knocks it over and spreads every thing around with the diary landing opened to a page describing some raunchy activities in purple prose. Then, after that, blaming curious neighbors who pick up the diary for reading in fascination about your habit of visiting sleazy strip joints and sharing afternoon delights with willing married ladies in the local no-tell motel and then worse– gossiping about your proclivities with other neighbors!
Ohh… and then it turns out that you run a local deli with a customer base of bible reading nuns, and catholic school children. As a result of all the gossip, parents won’t let kids stop in and your business declines. Whoa is you!
Of course you didn’t want people to know what you were doing! Of course you didn’t want your private papers strewed about by coyotes. Of course this is more embarassing than people gossiping about your provocative drunk dancing in the bar last night! Of course you feel humiliated that everyone is gossiping. Of course you are bummed out that the kids no longer lunch there and you have to survive on business from truckers and the non-bible readin’ crowd. Whoa is you!
Yes. Some things are more embarassing than others. We all get that.
But that’s just my metaphor. I’m sure you can find something imperfect in it.
They got the wrong Jodie Foster movie. Contact.
Re: Copner (Feb 25 11:44),
The only aspect of the post-dance gossip that I consider analogous is this:
Bad things happen to people. Sometimes, it’s not their fault. Sometimes it is.
Part of Neven’s suggestion seems to be that if we should not blame a gang-rape victim for the rape, then we can’t blame CRU scientists for any negative consequences of their actions.
Well… that all depends on the extent to which the negative consequences were both foreseeable or justified. If Neven wants to suggest they weren’t forseeable or justified, he’s free to do so.
But trying to argue by creating an utterly silly clearly flawed analogy? Sheesh.
“…the ‘blame the victim’ attitude. Lies about people – especially baseless allegations of fraud – are not acceptable.”
The problem with this defense is that the Warmers have lied. They did hide the decline, they have suppressed Peer critisicism etc. Now they claim “victimhood”.
The Warmers now face the “music” they wished on the Deniers. Well deserved.
> Then, after that, blaming curious neighbors picking up the diary for reading in fascination about your habit of visiting sleazy strip joints…
Two points on that analogy (though they cut in different directions).
1. The CRU employees and their correspondents didn’t leave their emails lying about. The unauthorized release wasn’t due to negligence–the accounts were actively hacked. Was the act of leaking/stealing/hacking these accounts ethical? No. If I had had the opportunity to release them (I didn’t), I would not have done so. Would you?
2. The email account I use for work is not mine, but my employer’s. There is no presumption of privacy. This is generally true of workplace emails; likely so for UEA. The uproar over the contents of the leaked/stolen/hacked emails concerns not personal conduct (“visiting sleazy strip joints”) but seemingly improper workplace activities. These activities were conducted for the most part by employees of public or quasi-public institutions, funded by taxpayer GBPs and USDs.
excuse the french but most people actually do not give a #### about climate or climate change
@lucia
I’m with you on these points:
The gang-rape is a terrible analogy. It’s far too emotive and hyperbolic. It also ignores the fact that in the case of the emails, all that was exposed was what the so-called victims had themselves done and thought they could conceal.
And if it eventually turns out that the so-called victims of climategate are pushed from their jobs because of things that they’ve done turn out to be seriously improper, I’m with Morgan, that’s a good thing. (I’m actually opened minded about whether all the things that are alleged to be improper, were improper, or were seriously improper).
My problem with the post-dance gossip analogy, is yes the scale is different from climategate, but more importantly is that it misses out a key part of the story – the exposure step (whatever you do at a public dance, you know everybody will see).
To me climategate seems a lot more like the MPs expenses scandal in Britain.
In case you didn’t know: until quite recently, MPs were claiming all sorts of dubious expenses to pad their salaries – ranging from bath plugs, to porn movie rentals, and giant TVs to repairs to their personal tennis courts. Tax payers were paying for all this stuff. But it was all in secret. Some bloggers and journalists smelt a whiff of nastiness, but they kept getting pushed back with the line “these are honourable chaps you can trust them”. MPs eventually pretended to be open by producing redacted expenses that hid most of the true details.
So what happened? How did the public find out?
Somebody stole a disk of unredacted data and sold (for six figures) it to a national newspaper. The whole thing thus came out.
At first, the establishment response was focused on
1. The exposure used underhanded means – therefore shoot the messenger (newspapers, cheque-book journalists, invasion of privacy, etc., etc.)
2. We’re doing important work, and it’s sometimes necessary to cut a few corners.
3. The MPs were within the rules and standards that they thought applied at the time, because all the other MPs were doing it too.
Now, after about a year, we got to the stage where a bunch of MPs are not standing at the next election (thus losing/pushed-from their jobs). Also 3 MPs (out of about 350 who had to repay their expenses) are being prosecuted for fraud. And the MPs expenses system is being radically reformed and cleaned up.
To me this seems very much like climategate. At the moment we’re still at the initial stage, where much of the discussion is focused on 1/2/3. However these are real red herring issues. Eventually, maybe it’ll take a year or two, we’ll get to the point when things start getting cleaned up.
The key similarity I see in both cases, is although the information (expenses or emails) were obtained by underhanded means, they exposed something that needed to be exposed but wasn’t likely to be exposed except by underhanded means.
Yes (the point sod focus on) the exposures caused pain to people. However though I think this pain is regrettable, I think it necessary, and fundamentally the pain was caused by the earlier (but hidden) dubious actions of those now in pain.
Having 15 years of email stolen and posted on the web strikes me as more like, storing an unlidded garbage can full of meat scraps and your diary containing deep-dark secrets then being surprised when a band of roaming coyotes knocks it over and spreads every thing around with the diary landing opened to a page describing some raunchy activities in purple prose. Then, after that, blaming curious neighbors who pick up the diary for reading in fascination about your habit of visiting sleazy strip joints and sharing afternoon delights with willing married ladies in the local no-tell motel and then worse– gossiping about your proclivities with other neighbors!
.
this “analogy” is rubbish.
.
nobody who had his mail stolen and published will agree with your description of the event.
.
on the other hand, a lot of people who have been burglared will describe feelings similar to “rape”. and having your mail published on the web will not make things better.
.
your approach to the scientists jobs is at best misguided as well. lucia.
People who do not give a #### about climate or climate change are enablers like Quislings or the vichy french
doh! That is a joke btw, cleverly and ambiguously merging bad analogy with Gordon’s law or whatever its called when the Nazi’s are invoked to make a rhetorical point. Designed from the ground up to either appeal to or offend everybody depending on how they take it. All for the purpose of satire. You know, like John Stewart.
Lucia, I don’t care what the statistics say, you are the hottest blogger in the blogosphere. That aint’ no joke. Thank you and no offense to Tom Fuller.
Re: Copner (Feb 25 11:30), points out a key problem – of climate alarmists using gross exaggeration with ad hominem attacks to denigrate and destroy “climate realists” who do not see evidence supporting the climate alarmists projections.
Climate alarmists are abusing “Bad News Sells” to grab a massive portion of science funding to further amplify their bad news – to the public detriment.
@AMac:
Are you sure they were hacked?
My throught is that maybe they were ZIPped up for some FOI request, or potential FOI request, or some other reason, and left in an unsecured folder on a server. The person then just downloaded them. Later of course, that person then used well-know vulnerabilities (the stuff known by teenager hackers) to upload them to a couple of unsecured, one of which was climate change blog.
I don’t know the first part of this is true or not, but it’s my speculation as I know it’s possible. I once visited a major web site, and accidentally typed http://www.sitename.com/. (with a dot on the end by accident) – and I saw a list of all sorts of “hidden” files and subdirectories which I could download from (I didn’t of course). I subsequently discovered this is a common server misconfiguration (my own web site turned out to have the same flaw, until I figured out how to change the relevant settings).
> Was the act of leaking/stealing/hacking these accounts ethical? No.
Anyway, as to whether they were stolen or hacked, I think it’s a red-herring. The real issue, like with the MPs expenses is that they contained things that probably needed to be exposed, but weren’t likely to have been exposed otherwise.
Was it ethical to take the emails?
I don’t know.
Sometimes under-handed tactics are necessary to expose worse things. I can decry the guy who stole the disk of MPs expenses – but I’m sort of glad that he did.
> If I had had the opportunity to release them (I didn’t), I would not have done so. Would you?
See above on ethics, not sure. But I know that I wouldn’t have had the knowledge to obtain them in the first place, or the balls to release them if they had magically arrived in my possession.
Lucia is knowingly lying here.
On the Bishop Hill blog, Lucia made the same false claim she wrote here when she asked me yesterday:
“you seem to be suggesting that climate scientist losing the public trust is somehow equivalent to a woman being raped. Is that what you meant?”
I responded:
“Nope”, and explained what I *did* mean.
Lucia read this comment and replied to it – so she knows she is lying when she again attributes HER STATEMENT to me, and she further knowingly lies when she writes:
“When called on the analogy, both Neven and Frank O’Dwyer are defending their analogy””
But in fact far from defending the analogy Lucia puts in my mouth, I said that I never made that analogy and Lucia knows that I said that.
I’ll also note that it is cowardly for Lucia to take her lies about me to a forum in which I don’t normally participate, and where I might never have read her comments, nor had any chance to respond.
I love metaphors. But all metaphor’s break down. That’s why they are metaphors.
The problem that I see here is that people on both sides are constitutionally unable to attend to the facts in front of them.
They are unable to stick to the facts of the case and render judgements based on those facts. on both sides.
Lucia, It might be an interesting exercise to present a simple case.
The case of the Jones mail I’ve mentioned from 2005.
@Frank:
> “Nopeâ€, and explained what I *did* mean.
Why not put here what you did mean. I believe the quote you’re referring to is:
> Nope. The comparison is with the ‘blame the victim’ attitude
If i understood correctly, you’re not calling the treatment-of-climate-scientists analogous to rape, but you are saying that climate-scientists are victims who are wrongly blamed for what happened to them?
This is right up there with the Obama birthers – not worthy of notice.
Re: Frank O’Dwyer (Feb 25 13:28),
Bull hockey. You did use this metaphor.
What I said was:
I agree you said you did not intend your use of this the metaphor to communicate the notion that climate scientists have been gang raped. However, your intention is irrelevant to my noting that you did circulate the
“Jodie-Foster-gang-rapeâ€metaphor. (edit: Note, Frank only circulated a metaphor that is commonly recognized as alluding to blaming a woman for rape. I have clarified above and included the quote.)You also defended use of this analogy saying this
In this response, you are defending your use of analogy as capturing an important feature. Even if you say you were not using that analogy to make people think climate scientists have been gang raped, you did, in fact, defend your use of this specific analogy.
I think Frank has a point, Lucia. He clearly disputed your version of the analogy. And moreover, on the Bishop Hill blog you drop the matter, as if you accepted his rebuttal. You said:
“Climate scientists aren’t victims.”
So you begin to argue his analogy on HIS terms.
“you did circulate the “Jodie-Foster-gang-rape†metaphor.”
Whoa. Please quote Frank’s post where he mentions Jodie-Foster and gang rape.
Boris– You are right. He did the short skirt metaphor. I’ll correct that.
Boris–
Let me elaborate– You are right that he did not specifically use the “jodie foster” words. But my responding ““Climate scientists aren’t victims.†is still disputing the rape metaphor. Women who are raped are victims.
What exactly is Franks’s short skirt metaphor meant to imply? What are readers supposed to think Frank thinks the woman in the short skirt is a victim of? Why would people be blaming her for whatever she became a victim of?
Frank was defending the use of that metaphor, and it is a commonly used metaphor alluding to a woman being blamed for getting raped.
“Frank was defending the use of that metaphor, and it is a commonly used metaphor alluding to a woman being blamed for getting raped.”
Indeed.
Andrew
Lucia,
That is incorrect and wrong. In the Bishop Hill comments linked to in the body of this post, you ask Frank O’Dwyer
Frank answered you
In other words, he directly disavowed any connection between what he was talking about, and an allusion to “a woman being raped.”
The record here (incl. your clarification) should reflect that.
Andrew_KY, people should be held to their words. They shouldn’t be held to what they didn’t say, or to what they plainly and clearly say they didn’t mean.
Suggest stepping back, the hasty resort to the keyboard is not our friend at moments like this.
Amac–
No. He stuck to his guns on using the analogy– only explaining that he didn’t mean the treatment of climate climate scientists amounts to rape. First, it is difficult to imagine any English speakers who were not born yesterday are unaware that the rape part is inherently contained in his alluding to the common idiom
By analogy he is saying:
a) like the woman wearing the short skirt who is a victim of rape climate scientists are victims (of something) and
b) we shouldn’t blame the woman for what happened to her even if she wore a short skirt so we shouldn’t blame scientists.
So, while me may admit that climate scientists are admittedly not victims of rape he defends his use of the analogy.
Lucia,
Yeah, i can still see having problems with the short skirt metaphor–I’m not really defending it. I just don’t see what Frank was saying was as hyperbolic as what Neven was saying. I’m not really comfortable with any allusions to rape, so on that we can agree…
the full comment written by Frank was this one:
.
Non sequitur. A significant section of ‘the public’ is lying about climate scientists, and being lied to. The very best solution to that would be for the people doing the lying to stop. Your argument here is not much better than ‘she shouldn’t have worn that short skirt’.
.
pretty reasonable.
.
so now that half of the hyperbole has disappeared, will you change the topic title lucia?
@AMac:
I think the short skirt thing clearly was a reference to rape.
I missed out a couple of vital words in my last post, so I’ll add them here (hopefully they show up in Bold)
——————————
@Frank:
> “Nopeâ€, and explained what I *did* mean.
Why not put here what you did mean. I believe the quote you’re referring to is:
> Nope. The comparison is with the ‘blame the victim’ attitude
If i understood correctly, you’re not calling the treatment-of-climate-scientists analogous to rape, but you are saying that climate-scientists are victims who are wrongly blamed for what happened to them, like, er, rape victims?
———————
So what I read him as saying, is that what happened to climate scientists is NOT like rape, but the climate-scientists are like rape victims in some (or one) way.
Do you agree that’s what he meant?
It’s a subtle distinction about the type of comparison to rape and rape victims, but a comparison is nevertheless there. Do you agree?
Personally, I’m uncomfortable with any analogy between being the victim of stolen/leaked/hacked emails and being criticised for their content, to being a victim serious violent crime. It just seems wrong and out of proportion.
“Andrew_KY, people should be held to their words. They shouldn’t be held to what they didn’t say, or to what they plainly and clearly say they didn’t mean.”
Amac,
I still agree with Lucia, still. FO’D ‘went there’ with the ’she shouldn’t have worn that short skirt’. That’s one of those things that is designed to provoke, and not have an exact meaning.
FO’D was clearly provoking. That he qualified it is fine, but doesn’t solve the problem of the language he purposefully used.
Andrew
hey Lucia,
Tamino thinks we can’t handle the truth.
http://statpad.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/comparing-single-and-monthly-offsets/
Now, I will ask Boris and any other person here who wants to claim that climate scientists are being mistreated.
Do you think it is reasonable for tamino to answer a simple question.
Did you read RomanM’s comment or blog and then delete his
comment 30 minutes later?
So I suggest commenters here write tamino a question.
“Tamino, is it true that you psoted this comment and then took it down?”
Since the people here who defend climate scientists have not participated in any “gang rape” Tamino should have no fears about answering your simple question. Will you ask him?
no, you wont. Why not? ask yourself that.
tamino on the wall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo
Here is the entire relevant exchange, 3 comments’ worth. I don’t know how to link individual comments there; First 20 comments. Bolding added.
February 25, 2010 | Frank O’Dwyer
Second 20 comments
February 25, 2010 | lucia
February 25, 2010 | Frank O’Dwyer
So by my (re)reading, Frank O’Dwyer brought up “short skirts”–Lucia’s right, that does allude to a rape scenario.
Lucia asked Frank about that directly, asserting that it’s an idiotic metaphor because scientist : right-to-be-trusted does not map to woman : right-to-not-be-raped.
Frank’s right, he disavowed that analogy. But then he returned to it, saying, “The comparison is with the ‘blame the victim’ attitude.”
“Blaming the victim” need not reference a rape analogy. “Blaming the victim” in the context of “she shouldn’t have worn that short skirt” — yes, that would only refer back to a rape analogy.
I believe that Frank didn’t mean to compare climate scientists to raped women, because that analogy doesn’t make much sense. On the other hand, by returning to the rape analogy immediately after disavowing it (with “blame the victim”), he re-opened the door to being misinterpreted on that point. The main point Frank was driving at was clearly that skeptics are very bad people, who stoop to low tactics (like, blaming the victim).
I’m done.
I think the obvious solution is for the AGW folks to stop wearing short skirts.
.
It may not be your fault you get gang raped, but no matter who’s fault it is you still don’t want to get gang raped.
.
Do you?
Re: Boris (Feb 25 14:42),
Agreed.
Re: AMac (Feb 25 15:31),
This where he defends the short skirt analogy:
He has admitted that the treatment to climate scientists is not rape, but stickes with the analogy as capturing the ‘blame the victim’ attitude. I see this as defending the use of the analogy.
To make the “blame the victim point” he chose an analogy that put the climate scientists in the role of victim. When pressed, he defends with the analogy as communicating the point he wishes to make.
So, he is defending the use of that analogy.
I realize you may not see it this way, but not defending the analogy would be something like, “Oh. The notion that the victim is being blamed for rape did not occur to me. Bad analogy. All I mean is…”
“Will you ask him?
no, you wont. Why not? ask yourself that.”
I asked myself and I said I don’t care.
Is it your contention that tamino is capricious in who he lets post? I’d agree. Is tamino intolerant of skeptics? I’d agree.
I don’t think RomanM’s post was put up and then taken down. Posts at Open Mind appear but it says “waiting for moderation” at the bottom. So he probably just deleted it when he moderated.
And, yes, I’ve had posts deleted at tamino’s, so I know of what I speak.
Re: steven mosher (Feb 25 15:18),
On the issue between Roman and Tamino, I would have to 1) know precisely what we are trying to determine most accurately (climate trend in warming, what the local climate is for FDA growth charts, what the annual cycle is and 2) think about it a lot.
It looks like Roman is doing (2). But I don’t have any real notion of whether any particular result is strongly order independent or what the trade-off are when you have missing data, switch location of stations etc. The amount of thought involved in the numerous picky questions like this is very large, and it is the precise reason I have told readers who encourage me to try to create my own surface temperature record at home in my own time that I have no intention of doing it.
fair enough Boris.
According to Roman the post did appear and then was taken down.
in any case. Roman does good work. So does tammy, I’ve stopped by and said good work! he does post those, sometimes.
Thou shalt not audit thy SCIENCE.
I think the AGW prmoter’s increasing inability to communicate is only due to the lack of substance behind their claims.
Doubling down by confusing self-inflicted damage by highly paid career professionals at the top of their professional heap, to the gang rape of a working class woman is demeaning.
Jones, mann, Hansen, Briffa, etc. are all big boys, playing the big leagues and getting extremely well paid for it. They have garnered huge levels of public status and fame by being the chorus of doom.
Now we find out that they were kidding around and misrepresenting the case, and they want to play the victim card?
They can shove it.
The AGw promotion squad is already trying the fourth rebranding of climate doom
(1 = climate change, 2= global warming, 3=back to climate change, 4= ‘climate crisis’)
in hopes of keeping that fear alive, but early indicators are their efforts are beomcong the punchlines of jokes, so far.
The only cheese these guys get with their latest whine is processed, pre-sliced and stale.
Oh that’s great, Lucia, pulling a Morano on me like that. Now I know how Michael Tobis felt. 😀
.
BTW, am I already being quoted on ClimateDepot? Have Jonathan Leake and James Delingpole been informed of this? Tell the world I’m a leading atmospheric physicist at MIT and a lead author of half of the WGI chapters of AR4. It’s not true, but hey, who cares? Don’t lose the opportunity.
.
steven mosher wrote: ” But all metaphor’s break down. That’s why they are metaphors.”
.
Exactly, although technically speaking I was using an analogy, acknowledging a difference in quantity, though not quality.
.
I’m not saying climate scientists are being gang-raped, that’s Lucia mixing up and combining to get those righteous indignation-juices flowing. My point was the same as Frank O’Dwyer’s: “The comparison is with the ‘blame the victim’ attitude. Lies about people – especially baseless allegations of fraud – are not acceptable, and it is not acceptable to blame the victim when that happens.”
.
I might be using a hyperbole to describe the feeling I get when seeing the self-proclaimed lukewarmers and denialists implying that climate scientists are themselves to blame for the public losing trust in climate science, but hey, I’m an alarmist who is worried about AGW being real and serious. Like I said in the thread where I drew the dreaded analogy: “It’s just that I can’t help thinking ‘what if AGW turns out to be a big problem after all’ when reading up on the climate PR-war.”
.
It bothers me that people who have been and still are very active in the climate PR war act as if they had no part whatsoever in the way ClimateGate came about and has been portrayed. They get to accuse, imply fraud and incite their readership but at the same time seem to believe they have no responsibility at all. Well, if AGW turns out be serious faster than expected, they will be in a a large part responsible for the consequences, especially if ClimateGate leads to a few more years of inaction (which I strongly suspect is their ultimate goal).
.
Again, I used a hyperbolic analogy which I wrote while being in a bad mood, but I stand by it and I won’t hide from that. Lucia, however, countered my analogy with a revealing understatement. She said that what has happened with regards to ClimateGate amounted to ‘a few got their hands slapped for not admitting they broke the cookie jar’. Now, I think that alarmists as well as denialists will agree that the potential consequences are a bit more serious, respectively fearing and hoping this will lead to the delaying of action to mitigate and adapt to AGW (yet again). This could reach much further than just a tarnish on the reputation of a few climate scientists. This isn’t just about climate scientists bringing wrath upon themselves, entirely through their own actions.
.
Now, why would a self-proclaimed lukewarmer use such an understating analogy to describe an issue with potentially serious consequences? I’m not a psychologist, but could it be that the self-proclaimed lukewarmer actually believes the consequences aren’t potentially serious at all? I said not too long ago on Michael Tobis’ blog that I believed that Lucia is a lukewarmer when it comes to the science of AGW, but a denialist when it comes to the rest. Perhaps the lukewarmer bit isn’t as neutral either?
.
After this episode of analogy distortion I am more convinced than ever that Lucia likes to assume the identity of lukewarmer because it appeals to her self-image of the cool and level-headed thinker that always makes sure she sounds sane and balanced. But people are contradictory beings, often unbeknownst to themselves. I think the way Lucia would like herself and others to perceive her is seriously clouding her confirmation bias that would normally place her in the ‘warming will be no problem or even beneficial’-category.
.
And I believe that just like some denialists she thinks all of this is just a fun game (teaching those arrogant alarmist activist scientists a lesson) where she bears no responsibility for the consequences that cannot come about, her being on the good side anyway with all the other self-proclaimed lukewarmers and denialists.
.
But what if they’re wrong? Will they feel responsible at all for their actions? And where are the true lukewarmers, the true honest brokers, the people in the centre?
Lucia is right. If you think that “being raped” is analogous to “losing public trust” then you are seriously deficient in analogical reasoning.
Mosh,
Don’t always prejudge 😛
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/false-claims-proven-false/#comment-39888
Re: Neven (Feb 25 18:47),
How would I know? Go visit and let me know.
Huh? Why would I do that?
You are using metaphors and where, climate scientists are cast in the role of rape victim, and painting those who criticize the climate scientists of acting like those who blame rape victims. You don’t want someone to point out that you are using this metaphor, don’t use it. Stick with saying things like “I think you are blaming the victim here.”
Then explain why a) you think they are a victim, b) why they are not responsible for the bad thing that happened to them and c) why people should not criticize them. Do that and no one is going to criticize you for using outrageous, disgusting, insulting to rape victim metaphors to try to make a case that those who criticize climate scientists as acting unfairly.
As for why would I suggest the situation is more like ‘a few got their hands slapped for not admitting they broke the cookie jar’? Because it’s a lot more like that than being raped. You aren’t actually bringing anything forward to suggest climate scientists got much more than a hand slapping. You seem to be trying to explain that the situation with climate is so dire that no one should observe that they did, indeed break the cookie jar, that they did not admit it, and that the only punishment is a hand slapping! (Mind you, even this is a metaphor.)
As for the stuff near the end of your rant: I have no idea why you think my diagnosis of what climate scientists did wrong in climategate, or the severity of their treatment reflects my notions about the likely sensitivity of the earth’s climate system. It seems to me perfectly possible for someone to think the earth will be set on fire by AGW but still recognize that climate scientists did misbehaved in climategate, but that so far,
“Do that and no one is going to criticize you for using outrageous, disgusting, insulting to rape victim metaphors to try to make a case that those who criticize climate scientists as acting unfairly. ”
.
Oh my, whatever happened to:
.
“Disgust is a strong word and it involves emotion not thought. I tend to be more moved by thoughts than feelings. As it happens, I don’t think I need to feel disgusted to think something merits criticism.”
.
I think that from now on that should read: “Disgust is a word reserved for alarmists, not for denialists who are really honest skeptics.” I’m sorry, Lucia, but you’re getting transparent.
.
.
.
“You are using metaphors and where, climate scientists are cast in the role of rape victim, and painting those who criticize the climate scientists of acting like those who blame rape victims.”
.
No, you misread, misinterpret and thus mischaracterize what I’ve said. The analogy with the rape is that something has been violated and parties that had part in the violation claim that it takes only one to tango. Public trust in climate science has been undermined through the active role of some people who criticize climate scientists in the way ClimateGate has been portrayed (namely as a fraud, a hoax thus disproving the AGW theory), but these people act as if they’re not responsible and it’s all the climate scientists’ fault. This is not about climate scientists, but about the undermining of science as a PR tactic and the lack of transparent accountability for the people who push that tactic. This tactic has consequences, especially if AGW turns out to be serious, a possibility that is apparently being ruled out by these ‘skeptics’. And by you too, I believe.
.
“Then explain why a) you think they are a victim, b) why they are not responsible for the bad thing that happened to them and c) why people should not criticize them.”
.
For the record, coming from a nobody:
a) they were victim of an illegal server hack.
b) they (actually, Phil Jones mainly) are partially responsible for the bad thing that happened to them. The breaking of FOIA rules should be punished, no matter eventual extenuating circumstances. It was a mistake, from start to finish.
c) People should criticize them, but the criticism should not be blown up out of all proportion which is clearly what has happened (and for which the scientists are not responsible). This has lead to the undermining of public trust in science, potentially leading to a few more years of inaction on AGW measures. If you can’t rule out that AGW could be serious, which any real skeptic would do, inaction is the last thing you’d want. But here we are discussing with Judith Curry all the things that need to be done to reach that scientific utopia from where we can finally proceed.
.
“You aren’t actually bringing anything forward to suggest climate scientists got much more than a hand slapping. You seem to be trying to explain that the situation with climate is so dire that no one should observe that they did, indeed break the cookie jar, that they did not admit it, and that the only punishment is a hand slapping!”
.
This isn’t about climate scientists receiving a hand slapping. I couldn’t care less, as it doesn’t change one iota of the science. The potential outcome of all of this goes well beyond a hand slapping, and you know what I mean.
Re: Neven (Feb 25 20:03),
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I don’t think I need to feel disgust to criticize something nor does that mean I feel the need to express it. That doesn’t mean that I can’t recognize that you chose to use a metaphor that will disgust most people to replace thoughtful argument with an emotionally laden image.
As for the rest of your discussion of your metaphor: You just want to keep on digging, don’t you?
Nice subject change in the final bit. My advice is this: If you don’t want to discuss the behavior of the climate science and the consequences don’t. But stop trying to suggest no one else may recognize and discuss their misbehavior, or that the consequence of being caught has not been the equivalent of a gang rape perpetrated on climate science (even if you suggest we should interpret the consequences using that metaphor) simply because you couldn’t care less if they misbehaved because that doesn’t change “the science” (whatever that means) one iota.
And no, as for your closing with “you know what I mean”, I often don’t know what you mean and don’t know now. I’m not entirely sure you know what you mean.
Lucia,
Stop associating my name with your made up crap. I’ll answer for my own words, not yours.
You flip back and forth between the word ‘metaphor’ and the word ‘analogy’. It is apparent to me that you don’t know what either of these words means.
I used no metaphor. In fact I didn’t even use an analogy. I directly compared your argument with another and stated my opinion that your argument was little better.
What I did not do:
1) Mention Jodie Foster
2) Mention gang rape
3) say that anything was equivalent to rape
4) say that anything was like rape
Had I used an analogy, you would still be wrong. The meaning of the word analogy has nothing to do with equivalence. It has to do with partial similarity. Really. Look it up. In case it is not clear, partially similar implies NOT THE SAME.
Here is an analogy: It is as if I had said ‘the elephant in the room is that Lucia doesn’t know what the word analogy means’, and you had responded ‘so I’m equivalent to an elephant, am I? You are saying I am fat!’. Had I then clarified ‘No, I’m not saying you are fat’, and you had gone on the following day to post somewhere else that I had said you are fat, you’d be lying.
See, you are entitled to disagree with my arguments. But you are not entitled to make stuff up and attribute your own statements to me, and then persist in doing so after you have been corrected. If you insist on doing so in future, please at least have the common courtesy to do so in a venue that I am actually participating in, or at least let me know, so I may be expected to see it and respond. As it is, it is a fluke that I saw this.
And there we go again:
“simply because you couldn’t care less if they misbehaved because that doesn’t change “the science†(whatever that means) one iota.”
.
Here’s what I said:
“This isn’t about climate scientists receiving a hand slapping. I couldn’t care less, as it doesn’t change one iota of the science.”
.
Now, what is it I couldn’t care less about?
.
.
“And no, as for your closing with “you know what I meanâ€, I often don’t know what you mean and don’t know now. I’m not entirely sure you know what you mean.”
.
I sure know what I mean, and I think I’ve made my position very clear, except to people who are showing their confirmation bias by repeatedly misinterpreting my writings. I now really think I stand a good chance of being right when I wrote this:
“After this episode of analogy distortion I am more convinced than ever that Lucia likes to assume the identity of lukewarmer because it appeals to her self-image of the cool and level-headed thinker that always makes sure she sounds sane and balanced. But people are contradictory beings, often unbeknownst to themselves. I think the way Lucia would like herself and others to perceive her is seriously clouding her confirmation bias that would normally place her in the ‘warming will be no problem or even beneficial’-category.”
.
.
.
And now I’ll be off to read up on Tamino who has some very interesting things to say about some of the people who should get it through their heads that they are accountable for the consequences of their unethical actions.
.
BTW, did you already apologize to Frank O’Dwyer?
Frank–
When you said “Your argument here is not much better than ’she shouldn’t have worn that short skirt’.” You made an analogy that involved a metaphor.
The analogy was to liken my argument to “she shouldn’t have worn that short skirt”. My argument was about climate scientists and what they had to do to regain public trust. The metaphor is that the statement “she shouldn’t have worn that short skirt” is an idiom that refers to a situation where people are blaming a rape victim for responsible for her having been raped.
So, yes, you made an analogy and used a metaphor. The metaphor referred to rape– without your using that specific word. That’s the way metaphors work. Fancy, huh?
You defended the use of this metaphor as capturing the idea you wished to convey: blaming the victim. Though you admit you do not intend to liken the climate scientists to rape victims– you nevertheless use this metaphor knowing that it conveys the notion of rape victim.
You now persist in defending your use of the metaphor as follows:
Sure. Your metaphor, like all metaphors, can at most, be only partially correct. But you use it and defend your use knowing that the audience will perceive the full image of a raped woman being blamed for being raped, knowing that the allusion to rape is especially vivid, and knowing this image will be lodged in people’s mind along with the tiny insignificant portion of the metaphor that might be remotely similar (and which you have difficulty defending as true in any case.)
So, yes, you are defending the use of a metaphor involving rape by insisting that you don’t mean to suggest ‘rape’ part of the metaphor is valid, but only the other having to do with being a her being victim of… what? A surfeit of invitations to the prom? People noticing her untanned legs? And that you think it is wrong that people might blame her of what? Failing to visit the tanning salon? Lack of fashion sense?
I already clarified that I was mistaken to say you specifically mentioned Jodie Foster. I apologize for my error on that point.
Are you really going to try for more analogies and metaphors. Because it sure looks to me like your example would be closer to capturing the flavor of your response if you modified the second analogy to have your repsonse say
” No, I’m not saying you are fat. I only meant to say you are bulky and look as big as an elephant.” Then the next day, I point out that you defended making an illusion to my being fat by explaining that you actually did wish to make a point about my being humogonourmous.
But of course, neither your “lucia is fat as an elephant” conversation nor the one I think more analogous to the real “short skirt” conversation happened, did they?
Neven and Frank – Do the right thing and just admit that any analogy/metaphor that somehow/someway even seems to strike a comparison between violent, crimnal action of rape and “climategate” and the resulting criticism of a very few climate scientist is way of base. I don’t think it matters whether the criticisms or the climate scientists are right or wrong, there is simply no possibly way to compare the pain and suffering and long term psychological impacts suffered by rape victims to any possible impacts suffered, rightly or wrongly, by the climate scientists involved in “climategate”. Do not try to defend it by saying that is not what I meant. I understand that you meant the “blame the victim” mentality. Nonetheless, there is no possible comparison between the victim of a violent crime which is possibly second only to murder and the “victims” of the outing of emails and other information stored on university computers. Just admit any such comparison was not well thought out and thus retracted. I certainly wouldn’t think less of you for coming to such a realization and might be inclined to listened to what you have to say a second time. On the other hand, if you can’t say “You know what, that wasn’t such a great analogy”, you will have demonstrated you have absolutely no critical thinking ability at all.
Sorry for the rant, but personally knowing more than one victim of rape, it is impossible to understand your Bs attempts at defending your position.
“On the other hand, if you can’t say “You know what, that wasn’t such a great analogy—
.
BobN, it might interest you to note that I wrote the following more than an hour before Lucia decided to hold me up for public scrutiny (which is her right as it’s her blog): “Forget what I said, I know I shouldn’t write when being in a bad mood.”
.
I won’t be a hypocrite by retracting what I said just because I can’t control people’s interpretation, especially after the misleading manner in which Lucia has framed the analogy. I stand by what I say, and the elephant in the room is Al Gore. :-p
.
This is not about rape victims. The mentality and ethical reprehensibility of those ‘skeptics’ who played a significant role in ClimateGate (and the ensuing distortion and misrepresentation of blown-up out of context quotes resulting in people losing trust in climate science and the reality of AGW) but nevertheless blame the handful of scientists for all that has happened reminded me of the characters in The Accused, that is all.
.
I want those ‘skeptics’ to know that they are accountable for the consequences of their actions. Because I get a feeling a lot of people believe they have no responsibility whatsoever. Well, if Phil Jones and Michael Mann have responsibility, so do Watts and McIntyre.
Neven–
Of course people are accountable for what they say and do.
I’m not sure this one came through. Posting it again.
.
.
And there we go again:
“simply because you couldn’t care less if they misbehaved because that doesn’t change “the science†(whatever that means) one iota.”
.
Here’s what I said:
“This isn’t about climate scientists receiving a hand slapping. I couldn’t care less, as it doesn’t change one iota of the science.”
.
Now, what is it I couldn’t care less about?
.
.
“And no, as for your closing with “you know what I meanâ€, I often don’t know what you mean and don’t know now. I’m not entirely sure you know what you mean.”
.
I sure know what I mean, and I think I’ve made my position very clear, except to people who are showing their confirmation bias by repeatedly misinterpreting my writings. I now really think I stand a good chance of being right when I wrote this:
“After this episode of analogy distortion I am more convinced than ever that Lucia likes to assume the identity of lukewarmer because it appeals to her self-image of the cool and level-headed thinker that always makes sure she sounds sane and balanced. But people are contradictory beings, often unbeknownst to themselves. I think the way Lucia would like herself and others to perceive her is seriously clouding her confirmation bias that would normally place her in the ‘warming will be no problem or even beneficial’-category.”
.
.
.
And now I’ll be off to read up on Tamino who has some very interesting things to say about some of the people who should get it through their heads that they are accountable for the consequences of their unethical actions.
.
BTW, did you already apologize to Frank O’Dwyer?
“Of course people are accountable for what they say and do.”
.
Really? So pray tell in what way McIntyre and especially Watts (of surface station fame) will be responsible if AGW turns out to be problematic after all? Do you think they feel they are acting responsibly, considering the possibility of AGW being problematic? What would they write if the wrote a blog article called ‘what if I’m wrong’?
.
My opinion is that if AGW turns out to be a problem both McIntyre and especially Watts will have proven to have behaved very irresponsibly. And not only because of their role in ClimateGate.
The use of the rape metaphor seems too “out there” to even acknowledge. The mantle of the ‘victim’ is really unbecoming of those who have been pushing “the science is settled”, the deniers should be tried for “crimes against humanity”.
And sod, I’m sorry but I’m not buying the “stolen emails” sob story. I have every email written for the company I current work for. It is understood they are the property of that company and are subject to subpoena, review, distribution and any other form of forced distribution. You will not find 5 emails you could take out of context to infer criminal activity. People with integrity do not fear disclosure.
Neven-
Scientists getting their hand slapped for misbehaving? Yet somehow, you feel the need to moan and wail about their gettign their hand slapped — going to the extent of using analogies that would suggest to readers they are on par with raped women!
As for your current explanation of your making yourself clear, the “you know what I mean” was tacked on to this
If that “you know what I mean” at the end of multi-paragraph (Comment#35012) written at 8:03 pm was supposed to refer back to your rather befuddled amateur arm-chair psychoanalysis of me in multi-paragraph (Comment#34980) written at 6:47 pm, separated by several other people posting comments, then no…. I would never have guessed that’s what you were referring to when you said “you know what I mean”.
Nice try, Frank, but you still do not understand analogical reasoning. When Aristotle, say, employed it to explore the character of the polis (state) distinguished from that of the oikos (household) he attempted to tease out the manner in which the former is both like and unlike the latter. But the usefulness of analogical reasoning only arises because although both are different modes of association, they are nevertheless still modes of association. The problem for Neven and yourself is that it is entirely unclear how “being raped” and “losing public trust” are different modes within the same category; and this is true both in respect of their conduct (wearing short skirts/ avoiding FOI requests, etc.) and the consequences that followed from their conduct (being raped/ losing public trust). In fact, its not unclear; they simply are not analogous.
“The problem for Neven and yourself is that it is entirely unclear how “being raped†and “losing public trust†are different modes within the same category.”
.
Again this is not the problem, as my analogy was about something else entirely. Nevertheless both the raping of Jodie Foster in the fictional movie The Accused and the undermining (not losing) of public trust in climate science are similar in that they are both an act of violation. To say that the violation was brought about solely by the victim is misleading and highly unethical.
.
The undermining has been largely brought about by a PR campaign that has blown up quotes as ‘hide the decline’ and ‘travesty’ out of proportion. Instead of ‘Phil Jones didn’t correctly handle FOIA requests and should be reprimanded’ ClimateGate has been mainly about the scam, the fraud and the hoax of the AGW theory, prolonged by equally distorted and exaggerated (IMO) claims regarding IPCC mistakes, three years after AR4 came out.
a close look at what Neven and Frank have actually said, shows that both made pretty reasonable comments. none of them was comparing “loss of credibility” to “being gang raped”.
both made comments to put their initial comment in even more perspective.
.
the term “hyperbole” does at best describe lucia s attempt to characterise what was said.
.
—————————–
.
i strongly disagree with the rather passive phrase “Climate scientists losing public trust”, during times of a active campaign to discredit climate scientists, based mostly on false and misleading claims.
.
Having 15 years of email stolen and posted on the web strikes me as more like, storing an unlidded garbage can full of meat scraps and your diary containing deep-dark secrets then being surprised when a band of roaming coyotes knocks it over and spreads every thing around with the diary landing opened to a page describing some raunchy activities in purple prose.
.
it looks like british police is till searching that coyote.
.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/25/ctm-is-contacted-by-the-norfolk-constabulary-and-responds/
.
“Of course people are accountable for what they say and do.â€
.
can you explain to us, how chifio or anthony will be held responsible for spreading completely false information?
Nevertheless both the raping of Jodie Foster in the fictional movie The Accused and the undermining (not losing) of public trust in climate science are similar in that they are both an act of violation.
No, sorry, they are both not acts of violation. When people judge a certain sort of conduct as wrong and this “undermines” their trust in the said group nothing of this group has been ‘violated’. If anything is said to be violated it will be the confidence that has been entrusted to them by the public.
none of them was comparing “loss of credibility†to “being gang rapedâ€.
If they weren’t comparing the former to the latter why did they employ the use of analogy?
Moreover, it seems we have two contradictory arguments deployed when it is to their convenience: (a) the analogy is fair and illuminating; and (b) they are not making an analogy. Quite breathtaking.
“When people judge a certain sort of conduct as wrong”
.
There’s a very good chance their judgement has been influenced by distortions and exaggerations, which are continuing to this day. That’s the violation.
.
Naturally this is a matter of perspective. Perhaps you believe AGW theory is a fraudulent scam, or that the climate scientists accused of a variety of crimes/mistakes are entirely to blame for the undermining of public trust in climate science. In my opinion that’s going too far, especially considering the fact that ClimateGate hasn’t changed anything about the fundamentals of AGW theory.
There’s a very good chance their judgement has been influenced by distortions and exaggerations, which are continuing to this day. That’s the violation.
Misjudgements, when they occur, are not violations.
Naturally this is a matter of perspective. Perhaps you believe AGW theory is a fraudulent scam, or that the climate scientists accused of a variety of crimes/mistakes are entirely to blame for the undermining of public trust in climate science.
No, I neither think it is all a “fraudulent scam” nor that all climate scientists are innocent lambs; I think we find a variety of conduct that ranges from the acceptable to the unacceptable. I think that recent events had encouraged the public to reconsider the trust they have placed upon those concerned, much as any political scandal, or any other sort of scandal, does.
I have a question for Neven + co.
When Deep Throat leaked information on Nixon, would that mean Nixon was “violated”?
If Deep Throat had used email and computers to either leak or hack the data from outside, instead of leaking inside information, would that make it “violation”?
Personally I just think the “violation” concept is just not descriptive of the above, or of the climategate.
And I don’t think Watergate is such a bad analogy – remember
1. Nixon also lost the public trust when his involvement in various activities (that he assumed would remain secret) was exposed
2. Nixon’s involvement in Watergate activities didn’t make any difference substantive policies and positions on the big issues such as Vietnam or US Domestic Affairs, etc.
3. The particular conduct that got Nixon into trouble was how he and his group treated his opponents
you forgot to mention the breakin. it is what started watergate. there was a REAL CRIME.
.
not a potential one, mentioned in STOLEN MAIL.
.
the person involved also was the president of the United States.
.
not some random researcher.
Sod
If they are, or people suspect they are, the same way climate scientists are held accountable: With people who think bad thoughts writing nasty things at blogs and forums.
Lucia,
Comments made by a few individuals should not be the basis of a post. There are strong views on both sides, and a lot of strange statements. Let the facts prevail, instead of getting into name calling or analogies.
sod, of course the precise details of Watergate are different, but you dodged the question.
Was Nixon “violated” by having his misdeeds exposed?
I feel Patchy’s resignation coming on.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/ipcc-to-be-independently-reviewed.html
Faster, faster, faster!
(no “That’s what she said” jokes, please) 😉
Andrew
“Al Gore won a Nobel Prize and an Oscar for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. But in the last three months, as global warming has gone from a scientific near-certitude to the subject of satire, Gore — the public face of global warming — has been silent on the topic.”
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/inconvenient-truth-for-al-gore/?test=latestnews
Andrew
Of course, Jodie Foster wasn’t raped at all. Rather she was paid millions of dollars to pretend for the cameras. Maybe that’s a more accurate metaphor to describe how the AGW alarmists behaved.
I get Lucia’s point about the the gang-rape metaphor being over the top, though more relevantly, as she cogently points out, it’s also quite inaccurate as the perpetrators in question have suffered no punishment therefore any victimization / assault metaphor is just plain misapplied.
I am, however, disturbed by the notion that the use of the metaphor is “insulting to women who have been raped”. That is equally plainly ridiculous and such censoriousness and moral outrage is not only also quite out of proportion to its cause but has a chilling effect on free debate, the lack of which got us into this AGW mess in the first place.
Suppose some political commentator says in reference to a Senate Committee, “The Majority strangled the Bill at birth”. Is this an insult to infants (and their loved ones) who were done to death by some evil lunatic or met their end through tragic mischance? Of course not. No more than “The Colts broke the back of the Eagles defense” is a callous disregard for the appalling suffering which those with spinal injuries endure. Or “Marcia Clarke cut her own throat when she called Mark Furhman to the stand” a denigration of those who (attempt to) commit suicide.
Life is full of wickedness and tragic events, intended and otherwise. To ringfence them from our public discourse is a misapplication of the compassion which is necessary to make human life civilized and which sometimes can even make it noble.
Re: liamascorcaigh (Feb 28 12:40),
Nonsense. The moral outrage is not out of proportion to its cause and even if it were, verbally expressing moral outrage does not have any chilling effect on free debate. If it was, then telling people they cannot express moral outrage has an equally chilling effect on free debate!
Here is how free debate works: Those who wish to continue to liken the treatment of climate scientists to victims of gang rape may continue to do so if they wish. Those who think their use of such metaphors is ridiculous, outrageous, laughable, disgusting or insulting to rape victims get to say so. Those, like you, who think that someone like me should just shut up and say nothing when someone likens scientists to victims of gang rape can say so– even presenting the ridiculous notion that my speech must be banned to to avoid chilling speech. Then, I get to reply to you and point out that your notion that my speech must be put on ice to avoid chilling free debate make no sense.
Meanwhile, others can jump in with their 2 cents, and lurkers can decide whose arguments they find persuasive.
As for judging your argument about metaphors: Each reader can judge whether your metaphors actually parallel that used by those who wish to equate the suffering of climate scientists to that of rape victims. I would suggest that quite a few people would not read “The Colts broke the back of the Eagles defense†as suggesting that the speaker trying to make anyone think the Eagle defense have suffered as much paraplegics, yet would still read, “The treatment of climate scientists amounts to gang rape” and suggesting that climate scientists treatment is, somehow, close to the suffering of a victim of gang rape. Part of the reason is that no one is actually trying to make you feel really and truly sorry for the Eagles, or trying to suggest that you can’t blame the Eagles training, mis-steps, strategy or performance for having lost the game. No one is suggesting you should transfer victory from the Colts to the Eagles, or give Eagles back points, or anything similar by use of that metaphor.
In contrast, the rape metaphor is actually trying to use vivid emotions and sympathy for suffering of rape victims to get the listener to believe that climate scientists should be shielded from consequences that may have befallen them.
Lucia says: “In contrast, the rape metaphor is actually trying to use vivid emotions and sympathy for suffering of rape victims to get the listener to believe that climate scientists should be shielded from consequences that may have befallen them.”
This is exactly what he is doing – a polemical trick – and I completely agree that it is both inane and cunning at the same time and applaud you for calling him out on his attempt to distort the truth in order to provide cover for the climate scientists’ corrupt practices.
But you did more than expose the hollowness of his argument. You objected, no, you vehemently denounced the way he chose to express the argument. And you did so in such a way as to present him as morally delinquent because of how he chose to express himself. It is this I disagree with. It is an implicit advocacy of a speech code. Broken backs are acceptable, apparently. As are, or so I infer from your silence, strangled infants and cut throats. But touch ye not female rape victims. That is beyond the pale.
For what reason? Why stop there? Are not the crippled, the blinded, the battered allowed to also weigh their pain on the scales of moral equivalency and find themselves offended. Cannot they and their advocates also denounce and deride? Where do we stop? To avoid the moral derision of the overly sensitive or willfully offendable must we censor ourselves from the waning of the moon to its waxing?
Lucia also says: “Those, like you, who think that someone like me should just shut up and say nothing when someone likens scientists to victims of gang rape can say so– even presenting the ridiculous notion that my speech must be banned to to avoid chilling speech. Then, I get to reply to you and point out that your notion that my speech must be put on ice to avoid chilling free debate make no sense.”
You must be having this argument with someone else. “Shut up”? “Banned”?? “Put on ice”??? Read what I said. You’re cramming a stranger’s words into my mouth. I never even came close to suggesting anything of the kind. Quite the contrary. I was pointing out where such an approach as you are taking can lead to.
I absolutely support your right to say whatever the heck you want. I do all the time. I’m doing so now. My God, it’s your blog – and a bloody good one. I’d have no voice here only for you. And you imagine *I* wish to silence *you*! I am not capable of such lese majeste, I assure you. You have contributed greatly to the whole AGW question and have my unstinting respect. I want you to write and write and the world to read what you say. You have constructed a strawman in my stead, a very Wicker Man, reading intentions into what I said that are the very opposite of my purposes – and my words.
You suggested that if I say what I say, that chills speech, and that must not be done. How is this not suggesting that to avoid chilling speech, I must not express my opinion on this issue?
As I said, it’s up to others to decide if the example idioms you provided are the same as the rape metaphor. I think they are not.
lucia says “You suggested that if I say what I say, that chills speech, and that must not be done. How is this not suggesting that to avoid chilling speech, I must not express my opinion on this issue?”
Again with the inferences. I pointed out that the effect of what you’re doing has a chilling effect on public discourse. There is no “must not” in what I said. Your moral censoriousness in this instance dismays me. I believe it changes the climate, as it were, of the discussion by invoking politically correct taboos which many other participants do not share but dare not oppose through fear of themselves becoming targets. I am attempting to persuade not proscribe.
The film in question – a shabby piece of feminist agitprop – was produced to have just such an effect. The woman who lives by no moral code but her own is valorized as an heroic victim while all the men, just regular guys, mind, having a beer, are ludicrously portrayed as moral monsters of the most depraved kind.
It is the ordinariness of both the circumstances and the men that is the key to the film’s “message”. This is not a war zone where outrages may occur within the mayhem. These are not criminals engaged in self-willed wickedness. They are everyday fathers, husbands, brother, sons, neighbors, friends, colleagues. They are Everyman.
This random collection of men socializing in their local bar turns into a baying pack of bestial rapists as a result of the Jodie Foster character doing the kind of dance one sees every year during the Super Bowl half-time show.
And no man present, not one, attempts to intervene or calls the police. Not one is outraged at the appalling crime but rather all are aroused to a sexual frenzy hardly credible in a troop of chimpanzees. Not a single one shows evidence of the kind of response the overwhelming majority of men display every day in real life as cops, firefighters, teachers, doctors, nurses, rescue workers, loving fathers and devoted husbands.
If “The Accused” had been set in New York on 9/11 we’d have been presented with the uplifting spectacle of a unit of firemen raping a female executive in the Twin Towers while her still dazed male co-workers cheered them on!
The message of course is that all men, no matter how ordinary or normal, are degenerate sexual predators if given the opportunity. This is an Andrea Dworkin fantasy of the most lurid kind.
Such malevolent propaganda – and we are inundated with it – demonizes men and drives a wedge between us all by indoctrinating women into seeing aggression and evil intent in anything and everything men say and do in relation to them. It creates in many women a false consciousness of being denigrated and diminished when nothing of the kind is actually occurring.
This is what has happened here.
Re: Rape, Gang-rape, breaking backs, strangling infants.
In our Western society, strangling an infant at birth, or somebody breaking your back as a means of punishment or execution (like breaking on the wheel), are generally consigned to historic past. Thus these terms have lost much of their power as metaphors – they are instead generally used as stock phrases, with a self-contained meaning, and with the metaphoric or analogous sense almost forgotten.
On the other hand, rape and gang-rape are however still current problems.
Rape/Gang-rape thus IS a much stronger turn of phrase.
I think it was chosen precisely because of that. if they had said “climate scientists had been saturation bombed with criticism”, or “the media consenus on AGW has had its back broken by climategate”, nobody would have blinked an eyelid.
liamascorcaigh
How in the world does what I say have a chilling effect on discourse?
How was I morally censorious? I said something was an insult– which it is. That’s not a statement of moral outrage.
What moral taboo? Insulting people is a taboo?
Wow. Just wow. Are you unaware the movie was inspired by this story:
No Town Without Pity, a Divided New Bedford Seeks Justice in a Brutal Gang Rape Case
Interesting theory. But I imagine the movie makers wanted to place the movie in the setting more similar to where the historic gang rape actually occurred.
I hesitate to suggest you feel moral outrage at the fact that a movie based on an actual historic incident was made. I hesitate to suggest that you think women only worry about rape because of silly movies.