The past two posts have discussed Tobis’s poor response to Simac’s post at Pajamas Media and shown the invitation to the debate itself. My major point is that, given Michael Tobis’s claimed goals, his post went beyond “ill-advised”. It may have been the worst possible response to Simac’s post at Pajamas Medea.
In comments, Michael tells us,
I intend to keep making the case as best I can, and recommend the same to others. If somebody knows a better way, a way that we can make the case without being vulnerable to accusations of arrogance, please let us in on it. Is it really arrogance, though, to claim you understand something better than someone else does, when the other person’s claim is simply a vacuous claim that “nobody understands this at allâ€
Well… I’m barely going to touch the second part. Telling people that you are right because you are understand something better than they do almost never persuades them. There are many reasons for this including a) they often simply don’t agree with your assessment of your relative levels of understanding of “something”, b) when you make the claim, you have often mis-diagnosed the “something” being argued,and are, in fact totally, completely flat out wrong when you think you are better able to understand that “something”, and anyway c) in her Pajamas Medial post, Simac (the woman whose understanding you impugned) never claimed “nobody understands this at all”. So, you are making your case in favor of displaying arrogance based on a combination of false notions and a strawman.
So, in reality, if you wish to persuade people, showing arrogance– and worse repeatedly defending your arrogance– is an foolish choice. Of course, fools, particularly educated ones, are often arrogant. This makes it no more foolish to exhibit the trait, as people will interpret your arrogance as evidence consistent with the theory that you are foolish.
The more important advice
Now, let me move onto the more important advice. The fact is, I can suggest a much better way Tobis “group” — who knew of the proposed debate as early as Jan. 5, might have sculpted their own responses and those of scientists who might be invited.
The relevant question is, what could they have done to prevent the planned debate from becoming a talking point for the group they consider “the other side”?
We know that Tobis group is operating on the assumption that the “other side” has been funded to tell lies and that the organizers have political motives. It’s not clear scientists on the “other side” are funded at all — but no matter. The balance of evidence does suggest Ms. Simac is politically motivated, but so is Michael Tobis’s group.
It seems to me the ideal political strategy for Michael’s is group is the same whether or not Simac’s group is politically motivated or funded by the devil. Unfortunately, MTs “side” went about everything wrong from the very start. Whether or not the other side is political or funded, it’s worth while to at least seem open to discussion. (Actually being open is even better– but seeming matters in politics.)
Whether or not the science on AGW is clear is also irrelevant to whether scientists should seem open to debate. Scientists in all areas consider it worthwhile to discuss topics even where science is settled. Voters know this. Voters also know that politically AGW is a hot topic. Given the known political importance of the topic, it is unwise to appear to be hiding, to appear arrogant, or to tell voters that they are unable to distinguish between lies and the truth. Even if you believe they cannot, they think they can distinguish between lies and truth and will act accordingly.
Given all this, let’s examine places where Michael’s “side” went wrong. The major mis-step did not occur Sunday when Michael wrote his very, very, very ill-advised post. It occurred way back on January 5, when Aaron Huertas received an politely worded invitation to recommend speakers for the event.
Respose to the letter.
In early January, Aarron Huertas received a polite letter inviting him to suggest the names of some climate activist in his political organization (i.e. The Union of Concerned Scientists) who might wish to participate in a debate. Aarron correctly diagnosed that the group issuing the invitation appeared to be tea-partyish. The letter was quite upfront and did indicate that interest in the subject ultimately came down to voters needing to decide what to support at the ballot box. Ms. Simac did reveal that Soon and Legates planned to attend. All of this was up-front.
At this point, Aarron, whose title is “Press Secretary for the Union of Concerned Scientists”, and who might be expected to exhibit a modicum of skill when dealing with the public, appears to have spent a few minute thinking about how best to respond. His response was to fire off an email to Michael Tobis’s Google group. whose raison d’etre is
“Toward improved communication among scientists, policy experts, and the public on questions of global sustainability, especially focused on climate and anthropogenic forcing of climate.”,
Despite their mission, the members of that group appeared incapable of focusing on thinking of constructive ways to respond to an offer to communicate with residents of Eagle River, Wisconsin. In fact, reading over the history, none of them even tried to think of a useful response. The conversations quickly turned to what I would characterize as moaning and gnashing of teeth.
Had any of them focused on the question, “So, what can we do to minimize potential damage or even turn this into a positive for ‘our’ side?” one might have thought of this strategy.
Ask Aarron– the Press Secretary for the Union of Concerned Scientists, to send out emails informing his group that these invitations were circulating. In the letter, he could have advised the scientists that he’s thought of a number of constructive ways to respond. Options could include:
- Aaron should also immediately write Ms. Simac offering to help and enquiring about money to cover travel, hotel, meals and a small honorarium for their trouble. He should also advise that she volunteer information about financial arrangements in her letter– suggest her letter mentions whether or not Soon and Legates’s travel costs have been covered and by whom.
If Aaron wishes to go the extra mile, suggest he thinks the presentation might be enhanced if a few graduate students attended and ask her if she has funds to cover costs for the invited speaker to bring one along.
(The fact is, if someone invites you to do something costly for their benefit, they should offer to pay. If they do not, asking them to pay is entirely reasonable.)
- If any individual scientist does not wish to represent for any reason they should decline. However, they should do so politely. Polite declines could include, “Oh. That’s a great idea. But that’s too short of notice and I’m just not free on Jan. 31. Good luck!” Blogging about this might not be a bad idea. Highlighting cases like “Prof. A would have been delighted, but he classes just started!” or “Prof. B. was disappointed, but the event followed to closely on the big AGU meeting. ” Adding, “Have you contacted Aaron Huertas? He might be able to help you?” would be a nice touch.
- Suggest any invited scientist consider going. Emphasize that when accepting they should absolutely, positively request money to cover travel, hotel, meals and a small honorarium for their trouble. If none is offered, they should decline.
- Consider suggesting a scientist who might be too busy to present suggest Simac’s group invite one of their post docs or graduate students to debate in his place. Of course, since graduate students are poor, they too should request money to cover hotel, travel and meals. If none is offered, the graduate student should decline. (Also, be sure to consult your graduate student before volunteering them for a trip to blizzard prone Eagle River in January!)
- If Simac replies that they do not have funds to defray costs, and scientists were sincere in their desire to present their case at the event, get an activist blogger to blog about the invitation, mentioning that scientists and/or graduate students A, B, and C would have loved to attend, but the total cost would have been $whatever and they have no funds. Be sure to mention that Simac’s group would not pay– and also mention the short notice for the invitations. ( When doing blogging, be sure the scientists really will go if money materializes because either a) activists may provide money or b) skeptics may provide money. )
- In the blog post discussing funds, suggest that some of your blog readers might wish to provide funds for graduate students in climate science from Madison to pile in a mini-van and attend the event. Suggest sufficient funds be raised to host a pizza bash where the graduate students, faculty members and local high school students chat before or after the debate.
Heck, offer to make Simac’s debate even better by hosting a 1 hour mini poster session with each graduate student showing off their work!
- When declining, scientists who like the notion of a weekend in Eagle River Wisconsin should consider offering to give a lecture on a different date of their choosing. Given the likelihood of snowstorms in Northern Wisconsin, suggest sometime in the summer. Once again, ask for travel money and an honorarium. Once again: Blog about your willingness to present on some other date. (Bear in mind, Simac’s group might re-schedule and Legates and Soon may show up on your day. The change in date will permit your ‘side’ to organize the graduate student trick.)
- If invited scientists and or graduate students eventually go to Eagle River, blog about the event. Encourage AGW activists in Northern Wisconsin to attend — thereby filing the audience with supporters who might clap for your side and ask favorable questions. Find a video camera, tape the event and put it on YouTube. Take pictures and video of the mini-poster session. Present your side on YouTube.
- Do not, under any circumstances, suggest to the the organizers that you believe the “other side” has been funded to tell lies. Do not even come close to insinuating that adults or high school students from Eagle River are incapable of understanding the basics evidence for AGW. Do not do this especially if you believe it is true.
Of course, my ideas might not work. However, I do think that if Aarron and MT’s “side” had thought of these responses, and gotten scientists to actually adopt the suggestion that they act politely, Ms. Simac would have had little to complain about at Pajama’s Media.
At worst, scientists would have declined politely. Simac might have been disappointed that no one came, but the various polite responses along with reasons for declining would be on record because someone like Michael Tobis would have blogged about it. The blog post would have either explained that activists scientists were willing to come but could not either because 3 weeks is too short notice or for lack of funds. Simac would have been unable to post the scientists impolite slams on the intelligence of high school students, and she would have had a difficult time insinuating scientists were unwilling to defend their positions.
At best, the activists would have co-opted Ms. Simac’s event turning it into something that promoted their agenda. More deliciously, Simac’s group would have funded the event!
Looking forward, it might be wise for Michael Tobis to recognize that the “other side” will likely continue to propose debates. With very little thought and effort, activists could turn these debates into an opportunity for outreach. Or, they can bitch, make rude comments, describe why outreach is futile, and write blog posts insinuating that mothers of nine do not ” think about complicated grownup stuff” and then explaining why they have a right to their arrogance.
The activists are big boys and girls. Michael Tobis claims they are super-mega smart. They have access to email, google groups, blogs, google wave and all the forms of communication available to mothers of nine living in Eagle River. Some even have political power.
How they chose behave when approached by mere voters is up to them.
Lucia,
Why are you giving away these secrets?
The point of a debate is to win it, and the warmist have a bad record in this respect. So I understand that they are reluctant to participate.
But they still could have good manners and be polite. People with savoir-vivre use their absolutely best manners with somebody they do not like. I would advise that worthy gentleman from Austin, Dr. Michael Tobis, to do the same.
Ooooh… a long lunchtime post to read! 🙂
Andrew
Alexej–
The graduate students sharing pizza with hungry high school students would probably win the debate for the activists. That is, provided the graduate students have any social skills at all. (Finding one who likes ice fishing, snow-mobiling and fishing might help in Eagle River.)
Re: SteveF (Feb 3 11:29),
Why not?
The coolest post I read this day. Spot on, thank you very much for that Lucia. I just hope “they” get the message.
Lucia,
“Why not?”
.
I was joking. But if Michael doesn’t already understand the basics of effective communication (in his 40’s!), then laying out the details for him won’t likely make any difference.
I wouldn’t exactly say that posting about the desireability of behaving like a human being toward other human beings is necessarily revealing any “secrets” although apparently the way some people act and the way some people respond to other human beings, perhaps treating each other like human beings isn’t as common knowledge as I would like.
Didn’t everyone’s mama tell you, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all!”?? That was pretty good advice. Unfortunately, some “scientists” at some point learned the lesson, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, say something that isn’t nice, and word it in the most condescending, arrogant, and superior-sounding way possible so that you really alienate people!”
Bravo! I am all for open and honest dialog on these issues sans the name calling, degrading remarks and condescension from supposedly “smart people” with too much schooling and too little social skills. Sometimes “we don’t know” is the best answer. Perhaps a Dale Carnegie class should be part of the climatology PhD curriculum.
Lucia,
I think you have to try to see this from the perspective of a GW activist.
First of all, GW activists don’t like debating with sceptics at all. They would rather pretend the sceptics don’t exist. Hence, while you and CA link to RC, the cowards at RC (and Tobis) are so terrified of giving you or CA any publicity that they don’t mention either in their long list of blogs.
Secondly, you have to be aware that when a GW activist sees the words “Willie Soon” (spelt correctly or not) he turns purple and steam starts gushing out of his ears. Any vestige of rational thought that might have remained in his head is lost, hence the kind of ranting we see from Tobis.
Thirdly, the GW activists have had a really bad time of it recently, with climategate and the IPCC errors and the media finally catching up, so they are pretty upset. We can expect much more incoherent angry hysteria from them in the coming months.
Michael Tobis appears to be making an anti-Socratic argument. According to him, in the ‘climate change’ debate, one side claims to understand something and the other claims “no one really understands it”. Tobis seems to think we should have a predisposition toward the person who claims to understand it.
(In passing, it’s not fair for Tobis to say this is a ‘vague’ claim just because it’s a negative assertion. The claim that, for example, “MBH does not use statistically valid techniques in its reconstruction of historical temperatures” is just as specific as the original MBH claim itself.)
I don’t find Tobis’ argument terribly persuasive from an epistemological standpoint. As I’m sure everyone remembers, Socrates made the point that someone who knows nothing except for the fact of his own ignorance is actually wiser than someone who thinks he knows something but doesn’t. I think Socrates has the better of the argument. Anyone who’s ever gotten lost with someone who was *sure* of the right path is likely to agree with me.
This fundamental issue seems to crop up often in the area of climate change. There’s a passage in the CRU e-mails where the Team complains about enduring criticism of their reconstruction from someone who has not produced a reconstruction — a fundamental misunderstanding of the burden of proof. I personally blame the Precautionary Principle for making people sloppy this way. The PP essentially says not to bother proving something before we act as if it’s true; is it any wonder we’ve stopped bothering to concern ourselves too much with proof?
Alexej Buergin (Comment#31900) February 3rd, 2010 at 11:37 am
“The point of a debate is to win it”
Not really, one can lose every argument in a debate and still come out on top in the eyes of the audience or vice versa.
If one watches the weekly Baghdad brieifings the sequence is fairly predicable.
Reporter 1: Softball question
General: Appropriate answer
Reporter 2: hardball question
General: “Excellent question…we share those same concerns and don’t currently have a good answer..we sure wish we did,but we don’t”.
The answer to question #2 establishes credibility..not the answer to question #1.
Winning a debate means, of course, shifting the opinions of the audience in the desired direction. A few years ago, holding a debate at all would have been enough for a skeptic to do that. According to recent polls that has changed.
I have a better opinion of high school students than Lucia (but she was probably joking). Being younger, they do not have the experience or knowlege of an older person, but they have the same IQ.
i completely disagree with your analysis Lucia.
for a start, scientists should tell the truth. if they don t show up to the event, because they think it is dubious or worthless, they should say so.
making excuses can backfire big times, especially when you are making excuses for a group of scientists.
the idea that Simac (this: http://www.gnaco.com/id17.html) would have accepted a polite “no” is a little optimistic.
at least, tea baggers would have been shouting about scientists dodging the event.
showing up to a discussion in a hostile environment (tea bagger organised and moderated?), against people with the sole purpose of obfuscating the subject, would not be a good idea.
it is very hard to leave such an even, while being perceived as winner by those present and your side.
trying to bribe anyone with pizza is plain out stupid. it will be pretty difficult to get funding for something like that from an university, while the other side basically will fund anything that supports their cause. this is a lost battle for scientists, even before it starts!
Re: Alexej Buergin (Feb 3 14:16),
I’m pretty sure I said I thought High School students were smart on one of these threads. I don’t think I’ve every suggested otherwise. I think by IQ, high school students are just as smart as older people, but they may lack experience.
Michael you are priceless.
—> “Is it really arrogance, though, to claim you understand something better than someone else does, when the other person’s claim is simply a vacuous claim that “nobody understands this at all—
I can claim I know quantum mechanics better than all of my friends. I can make that claim because I’ve studied it and the known theories that back it up, and most of my friends havent. I can also easily accept and agree with anyone telling me that nobody understands quantum mechanics at all, because there’s a universe-sized amount of truth to that. Most physicists worth their salt still scratch their heads on this stuff.
Oh, just a note… quantum mechanics is mathematically less complicated than Earths climate system.
“I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” – – – Richard Feynmann
By all means, continue to be so intellectually arrogant, it’s amusing.
“even before it starts!”
sod,
Apparently you judge people before you know them…
That’s exactly how Warmers approach science too… judging it without really knowing it.
Andrew
Apparently you judge people before you know them…
That’s exactly how Warmers approach science too… judging it without really knowing it.
Andrew
look Andrew, my argument was a simple one. but i will repeat it for you.
let us for a moment assume, that handing out pizza could swing the outcome of this debate.
.
now a real scientist would have to bring up some funds for the cost of that pizza. it will not fit into any of his funding mechanisms. because his university is not interested in him, swinging the outcome of such a debate.
.
.
the situation is completely different for the anti-science side, funded by right wing denialist think tank. their only purpose is swinging debates. if pizza could swing such outcomes, they would run their own delivery service!
sod
Who suggested bribing with pizza? And who said anything about getting the pizza money from a university?
Highschool students are likely to enjoy the company of college and graduate students. The two groups conversing over pizza is fun and collegial, and the pro-AGW graduate students would likely sway the highschool students toward listening to AGW arguments with favor. This has nothing to do with bribing anyone.
I suggested getting as much money as possible from Simac’s group and failing that, trying to get it from favorably inclined blog readers.
Who suggested she would gladly accept a polite no? The strategy is to avoid writing her talking point for her and having pre-rebutted those she might try to script.
lucia, you seem to think that the teabaggers are even more stupid than even i would suggest.
.
you expect them to fund a pizza dinner with AGW students? hardly!
.
blogs funding moving students to a place? a really weird idea. this takes massive organisation. and it needs to be coordinated with some official response by the scientists taking the invitation or declining it. the idea that the tea baggers would hold a dinner between pro-AGW students and the pupils is pretty optimistic again. especially if there is no formal debate.
.
if there is a debate, actions need to be coordinated. and the only person who could organise this, is the person doing the debate for the AGW side. and if that person does this, he will be called an activist and your side will hunt him down.
.
i am sorry Lucia, but i am 100% sure that you did not think enough about this “plan”.
sod-
Expect? No. But I think Aaron should have suggested they go the extra mile. And if they declined, one of the bloggers should have tried to raise money for the activity. Either this would succeed, or it would not. Why shouldn’t they try?
Massive organization? On what planet? I’m not suggesting airlifting food and medical supplies to Haiti.
It takes a minivan, funding for gas, a place to sleep and pizza to get 6 or so willing students to take a road trip from Madison to Northern Wisconsin. Given the size of University of Wisconsin, a few students might be would be even more willing especially you gave them some sort of credit for presenting a poster at a mini-poster session.
Ehrmm…. Why would there be no formal debate? That’s the whole point– the scientists agree to debate and bring graduate students along. As for the idea that having the hosts hold a dinner for invited guests, it’s actually normal practice for the host organization to take invited speakers to dinner. Most hosts would at least offer to take the four speakers to dinner! The point is Aaron should have tried to inveighel more and recognizing the pizza dinner might exceed the hosts budget, make parallel efforts to raise maybe $300 to cover the trip for the students.
Why can’t Michael Tobis reach out and suggest things? Post a tip jar at his blog? Why can’t Aaron Huertas consult the union of concerned scientists and ask them to donate $60 for pizza?
Any number of people could easily organize this if they wanted to do so. It’s trivial.
Hunt him down? And do what? Report that he participated in a debate in northern wisconsin? Encouraged 6 graduate students to go? Ate pizza with highschool students? I can just see faculty members trembling with fear at the thought people might think they sometimes eat pizza.
you are wrong on this lucia.
the idea that a random blog raises funds and organises a group of students, a car and a dinner without any contact person in either one of those two places is completely unrealistic.
.
the only person who could organise this, is the scientists who is travelling to the event. and his Cooperation with Tobis and his blog and the money (and a possible e-mail???) exchange would be the typical kind of activity, that scientists get attacked for at the moment.
.
without a contact in Eagle River, it could easily turn out that the dinner is with your students and a local gang of tea baggers.
those who donated money will not be happy, to find out who s dinner they have funded…
.
——————————–
but this can be tested easily. fair and balanced was the motto, applauded by basically everybody here. so why don t you send a couple of students over there, to balance the event that turned out to be a little biased.
raising a few hundred $ sounded pretty easy in your description,as did organising a group of students in a different town and their travels. the local tea baggers will of course love to organise a dinner, to give those high school kids a fair and balanced view. …
.
————————————-
.
you have not mentioned a single word about the problems of tea baggers organising and possibly moderating the event. and having full control over who participates.
I get the strong impression that sod has a hang up about gays (tea baggers). I understand why he does not like Lomborg, but Anderson Cooper is pro AGW, is he not?
Re: sod (Feb 3 15:49),
Random? Without any contact? The AGW activists communicating on Tobis’s google groups where Aaron first discussed the invitation, and who have formed a group whose mission is to improve communication can’t email each other? They can’t post updates on Michael’s google group? I think they can manage to do all these things. But if they can’t, they are truly a collection of clueless mopes.
Alexej– Are Lomborg and Cooper gay?
All I can think is sod must want to fail. Or he thinks
Michael Tobis has a follow-up post on his Kim Simac Invitation Adventure.
In the prior thread, one Denialist [sic] expressed concern that Lucia had revealed secret strategies that will lead to the triumph of the Warmist [sic] legions. Such worries turn out to be misplaced (as sod has already demonstrated, supra).
As Michael sees it, he was a bit insensitive in his offhand references to Simac’s motherhood. But then he blew it by saying, “Science is not data. We are not collecting fingerprints. We are describing what is actually happening. The data are of course a consistency check, but this isn’t a question of data at all” (his emphasis). Because, he goes on, while data are crucial, what he meant to say is that they are not enough.
All that other incorrect and gratuitously offensive material that Michael contributed to the prior thread: he still doesn’t get it.
Rejoice, Denialists! Your secrets are invulnerable to the schemes of the Lukewarmers!
Prolific AGW-Consensus commenter Hank Roberts consoles Michael with, “Sheesh, you must’ve gotten concern-trolled by the trollmaster. I never saw any sign of it, but the world under the bridge is its own universe.”
Concern-trolling trollmaster: I guess that’s you, Lucia. No good deed goes unpunished.
I suggest a “Do-over”. Since Tobis was the offending party with a bad case of foot-in-mouth he would be wise to reach out and attempt to bridge this growing crevasse between warmers and skeptics. Validating skeptics concerns is the first step in building trust.
UC San Diego is nice this time of year and there is a large group of researchers at Scripps with fairly diverse views on AGW. He could organize a “fair and balanced” debate among leading experts in the field and invite the Wisconsiners who were denigrated in his blog post. It was 65F in San Diego yesterday so getting people from the midwest to make the trip in February/March should not be too difficult.
Of course all this is assuming Tobis is seriously interested in furthering public understanding of AGW theory.
Lucia,
Usually not a grammar Nazi, but you tend to use “advise” when you mean “advice.”
Boris–
I’m not seeing where I used “advised” but meant “advice”.
I see this
Ill-advised means “Performed, carried out, or done without the benefit of wise counsel or careful prior deliberation.” That’s what I meant: his post went being being carried out without careful prior deliberation. Wise counsil would have advised against it.
I see “he could have advised”
Advised means
verb (used with object)
1. to give counsel to; offer an opinion or suggestion as worth following: I advise you to be cautious.
2. to recommend as desirable, wise, prudent, etc.: He advised secrecy.
3. to give (a person, group, etc.) information or notice (often fol. by of): The investors were advised of the risk. They advised him that this was their final notice.
I was suggesting all three of those!
Can you point out where I might have used “advised” when I meant “advice” (a noun.) I really wouldn’t want to be using a verb or adjective like “advise” when I mean to use a noun like “advice”!
Boris was right – the heading “The more important advise” should have used the word ‘advice’.
More importantly – Sod, take a deep breath. I know very little about the Tea Party, but I know what their name is. Your complete inability to use their proper name, instead denigrating them at every opportunity with a reference to a sex act makes you seem churlish at best. The whole point of Lucia’s post (and apparently Tobis’ group) is to foster civil conversation. The rarified flame-throwing arena of the blogosphere is rapidly invading the real world. I cannot stand snide pejorative attacks on people’s/organization’s names, whether by Fox, MSNBC or you. We all have to live with the outcome of the AGW debate, whether it be climate catastrophe or back-breaking legislation. (or both)
If we cannot talk to each other without these petty schoolyard taunts, we (society) will never come to a solution. I don’t have a venue to take news anchors to task over this, but I do with you. Suck it up, and articulate your points in a more educated manner.
TP– Thanks. I was using my search tool, but still not seeing that! Fixed.
sod (Comment#31969)
I find sod’s arguments unpersuasive and his style quite offensive. For starters, the tea partiers are not tea baggers – this is a despicable way of talking and makes me feel that the rest of sod’s arguments should be ignored just for this offensive language.
He is wrong on the facts , too. Universities do have funding for public outreach events. Climate scientists who bring in significant funding are perfectly able and indeed are encouraged to participate in public debates even if this requires funds. At least I assume that this is the case because this is how it is in other disciplines.
Its funny how sod is so sure of his position.
Its funny how sod has never convinced a single person here of his reasonableness.
Anyway, on sod’s view of the situation the tea baggers have the ultimate weapon. They just need to keep inviting scientists to debates, and scientists need to respond to these offers unreasonably, showing no civility or compassion for the ignorant. This will ensure that the tea baggers will continue to score PR points. Destiny.
denny,
Sod has ben wrong on the facts before and that doesnt stop him.
Its like arguing with a person who denies radiative physics.
lucia (Comment#31977) February 3rd, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Not that there’s anything wrong with it.
Lucia,
You seem to build your argument on a few assumptions, namely that
– A public debate is a useful forum to increase scientific understanding (or at the very least, participating in such a debate is doing less damage than refusing to debate)
– A lay audience is quite capable of distinguishing who is more likely right about a complex scientific topic (or at the very least, stating that this is a very difficult, if not impossible task for a lay audience is a bad PR strategy).
There are a lot of reasons why a public debate isn’t such a good forum at all to increase scientific understanding: It’s more about debating skills than about correct scientific understanding. The soundbite culture is not well suited for the latter. The person throwing mud has a huge advantage in such a debate, and insofar I think that that’s the major forte of “skepticsâ€, they’ll be at an advantage. I do realize that refusing to debate for these reasons is easily portrayed as “see, they refuse to debate us; they are scared that we are right!â€, so scientists are damned if they do and damned if they don’t engage in such debates.
If I were to hear a debate between someone who sais coffee is bad for your health and someone who claims the opposite, it’s damn difficult to know who is right and who is wrong, without background knowledge about the topic. There’s nothing arrogant or foolish in pointing that out (though I can see how easy it is to portray it as such; again a PR advantage for the “skepticsâ€). Isn’t it much more arrogant and foolish to think that you know better than the experts? Dunning Kruger comes to mind.
In a debate, the better debater has a huge advantage in appearing more believable. Surely it’s possible to use more cues as to who is more likely right (see eg http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/who-to-believe/), but merely using such cues rather than analyzing the detailed content is not foolproof.
Bart
“In a debate, the better debater has a huge advantage in appearing more believable.”
The bottom line in a debate is that the debater with the truth in his arsenal has the advantage.
Who would have that?
Andrew
Re: Bart Verheggen (Feb 4 08:12),
To the contrary. I have not based my argument on these assumptions. As it happens, I believe them to be true– and because they are true the strategy might not work. But my strategy would actually work better if those assumptions are false.
My argument is based on the assumptions that
1) Appearing unwilling to present your case to voters is a losing strategy.
2) Creating talking points about your unwillingness and rudeness is a losing strategy.
3) It’s useful to document anything that will cut the storyline “they are unwilling”. So, if it turns out that the reason for your unwillingness is that it costs $1000 to travel to Northern Wisconsin form California and the group inviting you was expecting you to use your own private funds, blog this. Express your regret. Once you do this, if the group complains you didn’t come, everyone will understand that you can’t be expected to spend $1000 of your own money to give a talk to an audience of 150 in blizzard prone Wisconsin on January 31. Insinuations that you aren’t going because you are afraid would fall on deaf ears because almost no one would want to spend $1000 to travel to blizzard prone Northern Wisconsin on January 31! (But bear in mind, if it’s a bluff and you run a blog post, someone might come up with the money, and then you’ll really have to go or this will backfire.)
So, how do you avoid these problems?
* You can avoid the seeming to be unwilling to present your case by telling people you would be willing participate if only you could. That’s where enquiring about funds, timetables etc. can be your friend. (But as I noted, you do have to be careful about insincere excuses. If you would not go even if they paid you millions, don’t say you would. The money might materialize.)
* You can avoid the creating talking points for “the other side” by merely being polite. You don’t even have to participate in the forum. Just don’t tack on nasty slams when declining the invitation.
But those assumptions relate to only 1/2 of the strategy I outlined. If you are being invited to a small town north-of-nowhere, you can in fact, “win” debates if you use your social skills, understand the importance of trust and understand the tendency of people to want to have their views fit in with the prevailing opinion. I’m also thinking of how you can present these things on the web.
Let’s look at these:
* Trust: Having a few graduate students and speakers on “your side” participate in a friendly lunch with 1/2 the audience fosters this trust all-a-y’all over at Tobis’ google groups are always telling each other is important. Gaining their trust will sway them to listen to you and agree with you especially if as you seem to believe, they cannot understand the technical arguments. (In fact, they only way this will not cause you to win the debate is if they can understand and your arguments are poor.) This is why, if at all possible, you want the graduate students and the pizza party.
* Fitting in: Encouraging AGW advocate friends to come listen will increase the amount of clapping and provide friend questions during the QA session. This will tend to make those who did not understand your points think “Oh. Wow! But look, all these other people thought Bart’s side won! I don’t understand, but that must have been a strong argument!”
Moreover, if you make a youtube video with people cheering and clapping your side, that can be very effective on the web or at your blogs.
You keep focusing on the mechanics of what would be an official, real honest to goodness debate. That’s shortsighted.
Just because these things are called debates doesn’t mean you have to buy into the notion that they really are debates. They are no more debates than those side-by-side interviews of presidential candidates called “debates” are “debates”. This is a chance to present your argument to a public forum. There is no reason you can’t try to inject non-verbal elements that favor your side.
If you are invited by a group, there is no reason you can’t ask them to pay for your presence. There is no reason you guys– who after all are forming all sorts of political groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists or Michael Tobis’s planet 3.0 groups, can’t take steps to sway this in your direction. If you can’t finagle money out of groups who invite you to cover the pizza bash, suggest it yourselves. There are plenty of green groups and AGW activists groups out there– go talk to them and find money to cover the pizza bashes. They aren’t going to be very frequent.
Do whatever. But stop this narrow thinking that the best response is refusing to talk directly to encounter honest-to-goodness members of the public face to face and the just moan about the fact that hurling insult and snark doesn’t work because they don’t trust you!
Lucia,
I like the suggestion of a “do-over”. In fact, the same idea occurred to me last night as I read these threads, the links, and even Tobis’ backpeddling post. Heck, I even imagined inviting you and Michael Tobis to my local high school to debate AGW. As a QC measure, we could limit the event only to the IB students.
I also have vast experience providing pizza and other forms of refreshment to graduate students. I know, ab-so-lu-tive-ly, that word of free pizza will draw them like flies to you-know-what, probably from three states away.
Word to Dr. Tobis: bitching in cyberspace about the ignorant masses and passing judgment on their breeding habits will get you exactly nowhere. Congrats, though, on reinforcing the general public’s stereotype of academics/Ph.D. holders. Really, it was a tour de force.
Re: Alexej Buergin (Feb 4 03:34),
It just wasn’t something I happened to know. It’s never occurred to me to investigate that.
Bart Verheggen (Comment#32070),
.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. But I think there is one more important issue that weighs in favor of public ‘debate’, although I think ‘discussion’ is probably a better term. Most voters may not understand the details of the technical issues (although people with some technical training will understand quite a lot!), but so long as climate scientists present a calmly reasoned case, the technical detail will not matter very much. What will matter a lot is how climate scientists who believe in extreme global warming conduct themselves in a public exchange. It isn’t really about debating techniques, it is about how climate scientists are perceived as people: are they perceived as reasonable, thoughtful people (AKA credible), or perceived as raging arrogant S.O.B.’s who think voters little more capable than trained horses to understand climate change (like Micheal Tobis has stated)? Very few voters would read Michael’s obnoxious pronouncements about the stupidity of the public and the immorality of anyone with more than 2 children and then believe his technical arguments on global warming.
.
And the key thing is, voters who reject the arguments of people like Michael, based only on his obnoxious personality and behavior, will most of the time be correct about the technical merits as well. Most adults know (implicitly or explicitly) that those who hold extreme positions, those who have no respect for people who disagree with them, and those incapable of discussing issues calmly are very often quite wrong in what they say. The nature of the field being discussed really doesn’t matter.
.
Of course if most everyone in climate science thinks and behaves like Michael, they better just stay at home.
They did not ask for somebody from California. There might be a guy doing his Ph. D. in Madison who would have been able and willing to participate, sort of a young and fresh MT.
And even if it is true that climate is complicated, because so many parts of science play a role, it is not so terribly difficult to explain the aspects. Prerequisite is of course that the speaker himself understands the topic he is talking about.
Maybe a local version of Jim Qwilleran would even write an intelligent article for the local paper.
Off the main topic, but Lucia, here you claim that Tobis’ organization and UCS are “political” organizations. What is your definition of “political” that justifies such a claim?
Lucia, SteveF,
It sounds to me that both of you agree with my basic premise that a staged debate is “won” not based on the scientific merit of the arguments, but more so based on how believable and nice you appear as a person (and how much pizza you feed the them)
And that is exactly why it’s not a useful forum to decide about which side has more scientific merit. A refusal to take part in a debate can then of course be protrayed as “you must think of yourself as a very nasty person!” However, I think “the other side” is much better at PR and at creating an appearance of believability than the average scientist.
SteveF, Believing someone based on how nice (s)he behaves (or the opposite) is not a good strategy for complex scientific matters, especially because those without the truth on their side will put a lot of effort in getting their PR in the best shape they can. (that movie, Thank you for smoking, comes to mind). I realize that such a call not to evaluate claims based on the niceness of the person goes against basic psychology though.
I agree with the importance of remaining polite.
Bart
SteveF wrote (Comment#32084) —
“What will matter a lot is how climate scientists who believe in extreme global warming conduct themselves in a public exchange. It isn’t really about debating techniques, it is about how climate scientists are perceived as people: are they perceived as reasonable, thoughtful people…?”
There’s another benefit to Plan SteveF. If Consensus climate scientists conducted themselves thusly in public exchanges, that standard might take hold more generally. It would benefit all sides of these debates–not to mention public policy–if the AGW Consensus climatologists’ view of good conduct mapped more closely to what this term means in other areas of physical science. It might subsequently lead to toning-down of the behavior of outspoken lay advocates of the AGW Consensus.
I find sod’s arguments unpersuasive and his style quite offensive. For starters, the tea partiers are not tea baggers – this is a despicable way of talking and makes me feel that the rest of sod’s arguments should be ignored just for this offensive language.
.
i disagree. i don t tend to make fun of other peoples names. but some names have to be earned. i could call myself the Mike Tyson of the blog comment sections.
you would be right if you made fun of my claim, simply because it is not the type of name that you give to yourself.
.
the same is true for people who are in denial of facts, but decide to call themselves sceptics. and of people with completely insane ideas, who try to wield the images of the Boston tea party. ( a similar thing is happening with the stolen mail and watergate, btw)
.
when people are a little more realistic about the names they give to themselves, i will most certainly not make fun of the name.
Sod has ben wrong on the facts before and that doesnt stop him.
Its like arguing with a person who denies radiative physics.
wow, yes, i have been wrong on facts in my life. i freely admit that.
.
but i am right most of the time, and there are enough people, who are constantly wrong.
.
and i am right on this one. it would be close to impossible for a blogger in New York, to organise and pay a group of students to travel from Madison to Eagle River. neither would they have a useful dinner there, organised by the local tea baggers to persuade high school students towards a pro-AGW position.
.
and if the professor who is travelling to Eagle River would get involved, the same people who applaud Lucia now, would call for his head. for accepting funds from a left wing blogger for travel expenses for his (possibly female?) students. this would be a story bigger than “climategate”.
AMac (Comment#31983),
“In the prior thread, one Denialist [sic] expressed concern that Lucia had revealed secret strategies that will lead to the triumph of the Warmist [sic] legions. ”
I am no ‘denialist’; ‘lukewarmer’ would be a better description. 😉
But I was joking… Micheal doesn’t, and will likely never will, have a clue, despite Lucia’s prudent advice. If you spend your whole life convincing yourself that you and your colleagues are mentally superior to everyone else, interactions with those outside your group aren’t likely to be pretty.
sod,
If you think that there are:
A. “people with completely insane ideas who try to wield the images of the Boston tea party ” (Tea Partiers)
…and that thinking thought A leads to thought:
B. sod is righteous in his beliefs
I’m telling you that you are wrong, for your own benefit.
You are imagining both A and B.
Back to lunch. 😉
Andrew
Bart Verheggen (Comment#32095),
“It sounds to me that both of you agree with my basic premise that a staged debate is “won†not based on the scientific merit of the arguments, but more so based on how believable and nice you appear as a person (and how much pizza you feed the them)”
.
No, I fear you miss the point.
.
You are not automatically a winner in a public exchange if you are a resonable person, but your most certainly are automatically a loser if your behavior is like that of someone people know is usually wrong; that is, if you behave like an SOB. And that you lose is the result of a completely rational analysis people make about you based on their personal experiences with SOB’s: they are usually less than completely honest, and very often turn out to be just plain wrong.
.
If climate scientists could ever get past the horrible impression they give in their blogs and public pronouncements (or for that matter, the horrible impression one gets from the arrogance and contempt amply shown in some of their email exchanges!), then the public could start to consider both the technical merits of the issue and the consensus of scientific opinion.
.
It has nothing to do with how well you debate, or even how much pizza you are willing to buy. It has only to do with not making yourself automatically lose. Nobody expects a climate scientist to be a polished public speaker (though some may be), and nobody expects them to be perfectly comfortable on the public stage (although some may be), but people do expect, with good reason, climate scientists to be decent human beings… and to act that way.
Bart Verheggen (Comment#32095),
And I forgot to add: If climate scientists all think the way Micheal Tobis thinks (to summarize: people are stupid, ignorant, breed too much, need to consume much less, and are for the most part intellectually incapable of useful participation in public discourse), then they will never be able to hide this POV, and their cause is lost, no matter what ‘the science’ says.
lucia (Comment#31955) February 3rd, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Since IQ is defined as ((mental age)/(chronological age)) multiplied by hundred, it is actually easier for a young person to have a high IQ than for an older one.
Alexey–
Isn’t the denomimantor the minimum of (age, 18 years)? Or something like that? I don’t study these thigns, but it seems to me they must do something to keep people’s IQ from measuring 20 when they hit 80 years old!
Anyway, even so, I think many teens mental age score is as high as that of 30 year olds! I don’t know what the average is, but I don’t think the IQ part of the mental age score changes all that much after 16 or so. (Of course, I could be wrong.) I think there is something about teen hormones that does make them judgment about risk , planning etc, lower than the average adults– but that’s not really something tested on IQ tests.
Sod,
Why do you persist in using the obviously derrogatory term “tea bagger”? It lends absolutely no weight to your arguments… quite the contrary in fact. Mostly it just lumps you in with people like Tobis who seem to think that insults score points in a debate.
Your “style” alienates reasonable people. I know I personally skim many of your posts or skip them entirely. This means that even if you have something valid to say, a lot of people are missing it simply because of the way you present your information.
You are providing a fine “Tobisian” example, essentially.
Sod also appears to think that ideas such as “freedom”, “liberty”, and “small, fiscally responsible government” are “insane ideas”, but that is probably a topic for a different type of blog entirely 🙂
I would recommend a few to him, but I doubt he would visit any, and if he did he would most likely do nothing but troll them instead of attempting any honest participation, alas.
Lucia, Alexej,
Wikipedia says:
“Modern scores are sometimes referred to as “deviation IQ”, while older method age-specific scores are referred to as “ratio IQ.””
Seems it is where the person falls in the appropriate normalized distribution of performance on a test, not an age ratio. Which seems to make sense; kids versus kinds, adults versus adults.
Why do you persist in using the obviously derrogatory term “tea bagger� It lends absolutely no weight to your arguments…
i have posted this before, but i guess you also jumped it. here is the video to watch, if you want to understand the tea bagger movement.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/tea-partier-calls-c-span-worried-his-prayers-for-byrd-to-die-got-inhofe-instead.php
a guy calls in, asking whether his prayers for the death of a democratic senator (to allow filibuster of the health care bill) had by accident killed a republican senator.
the call might have even been a hoax, but that doesn t change the fact, that Sen. John Barrasso, the moderator and the guys backstage did accept this completely insane behaviour as a part of the movement, that you defend here.
Sod also appears to think that ideas such as “freedomâ€, “libertyâ€, and “small, fiscally responsible government†are “insane ideasâ€,
why don t you point out where i said this?
Yes, the (first) definition of IQ is about 100 years old. If a 16-year-old has the test results of an average 19-year-old, his IQ would be 100*(19/16)= 119. Since mean is 100, standard deviation is 15, distribution is normal, he would just be among the 1/6 of the population we call smart.
The concept and especially the name run into problems with “political correctness”. But it seems that IQ is well correlated with success in life, even when the person measured is a child.
sod (Comment#32172) February 4th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
And where is the part when they hang their nuts into another guys mouth?
What I would like to see is a debae set up where some well credentialed climate scientists debate each other from a position opposing their personal point of view.
So Dr Roy Spencer and Lindzen arguing that we are witnessing dangerous anthropogenic climate change and, say James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt arguing that we aren’t.
Impossible I know, because you need participants who are genuinely interested in the spirit of sceptical enquiry and through making a genuine effort to make an opposing case find they falsify their own prior views.
It would be immeasurably beneficial if it could be done, but the fact that it couldn’t is what I believe is the root of our current problems. To many climate scientists simply aren’t interested in trying to falsify their own views.