{"id":9160,"date":"2010-02-03T11:10:50","date_gmt":"2010-02-03T17:10:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/?p=9160"},"modified":"2011-10-08T08:25:07","modified_gmt":"2011-10-08T14:25:07","slug":"how-to-respond-to-an-invitation-to-debate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/2010\/how-to-respond-to-an-invitation-to-debate\/","title":{"rendered":"How TO Respond to an Invitation to Debate."},"content":{"rendered":"

The past two posts have discussed Tobis’s poor response to Simac’s<\/a> post at Pajamas Media and shown the invitation to the debate itself.<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

In comments, Michael tells us, <\/p>\n

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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s claim is simply a vacuous claim that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153nobody understands this at all\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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<\/i> 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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

The more important advice<\/h3>\n

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. <\/p>\n

The relevant question is, what could they have done<\/em> to prevent the planned debate from becoming a talking point for the group they consider “the other side”? <\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

It seems to me the ideal political strategy for Michael’s<\/em> 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<\/i>. Whether or not the other side is political or funded, it’s worth while to at least seem<\/em> open to discussion. (Actually being open is even better– but seeming matters in politics.) <\/p>\n

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<\/em> are unable to distinguish between lies and the truth. Even if you believe they cannot, they<\/I> think they can distinguish between lies and truth and will act accordingly. <\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Respose to the letter.<\/h3>\n

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. <\/p>\n

At this point, Aarron, whose title is “Press Secretary for the Union of Concerned Scientists”, and who might<\/em> 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<\/a>. whose raison d’etre is <\/p>\n

“Toward improved communication among scientists, policy experts, and the public on questions of global sustainability, especially focused on climate and anthropogenic forcing of climate.”,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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<\/em> to think of a useful response. The conversations quickly turned to what I would characterize as moaning and gnashing of teeth. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

Ask Aarron– the Press Secretary<\/i> 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:<\/p>\n