Bin Laden and Anthony Watts
There, what did you make of that headline? What’s entering your mind?
Now head over to this post by Watts, and tell me what you think he’s up to. Well, one reader caught on pretty quick:
Good on you Anthony, we need to get a link going in peoples minds between Bin Laden and the likes of Romm and McKibben.
In an inline reply, Watts professes no such insinuation:
It is not my intent to compare them, I only want to point out that like with the 10:10 fiasco, AGW proponents that don’t want this sort of bad publicity, should distance themselves. I’m going to add that to the body of the story so it is clear.
I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again: Watts and Romm are two sides of the same coin. They both like to play the guilt by association card.
UPDATE: True to form, Romm plays his card here with an update:
Memo to Watts: You know your smear-fest has hit a new low when one of your own “˜tribal’ members, Keith Kloor, calls you out.
That’s so precious. That Romm considers me a member of the WUWT tribe should be a revelation to my friends and colleagues.
UPDATE 2: I see that Romm changed the text containing his reference to me, and that he’s at least letting the reader know. That didn’t happen the first time around when we tangled last year, so it’s nice to see he’s showing improvement in some areas.
In your rush to publish an immediate judgement, without bothering to ask a question, you neglected this:
“In case somebody misunderstands, it should be clearly understood that it is not my intent to compare these two AGW proponents to OSBL in any possible way. I only want to point out that like with the 10:10 fiasco, AGW proponents that don’t want this sort of bad publicity connected with their movement, IMO should distance themselves and their organizations from OSBL.”
Congratulations on acting in haste, just to play the gotcha game.
I disagree–and I disagreed before guest posting over there. And I consider myself evidence that Watts is better–you think Romm would ever let me guest post? And yet I’m probably equidistant between the two, as Anthony’s commenters have vigorously pointed out.
But really, Watts is a much gentler person and poster. He has a thing about Romm. I don’t blame him. So do I. Romm is SNIP.
I think it’s a poor move on Anthony’s part, I’m afraid. Not least because if he can link Bin Laden to the CAGW crowd, Romm can link Sarah Palin to the sceptics. Ugh.
Bin Laden’s call for action against carbon is merely symptomatic of his hatred of the “industrialised, self-indulgent infidels”. It’s also a construct to aid generation of support for the Taliban’s encroachments into Pakistan. The Taliban is being very effective at providing relief at the local level, where it is difficult for Western aid agencies to compete. Bin Laden’s support for action against climate change is not at all, in any way, inspired by the same environmentalist thinking as activists in the West, and this should be obvious. Even to Anthony. To make the connection in any way is, I’m afraid, disingenuous and not remotely beneficial.
Anthony,
Obviously, you felt the need to add that qualification (last graph) –after you published your original post, apparently (as I infer from your response to your commenter). But even so, I see it making no difference.
Because what follows is disingenuous: “I only want to point out that like with the 10:10 fiasco, AGW proponents that don’t want this sort of bad publicity connected with their movement, IMO should distance themselves and their organizations from OSBL.“
Puhleeze. You’re saying that with a straight face? As if suddenly you’re concerned about the AGW crowd getting “bad publicity”?
Plain and simple: this is “gotcha” tactics on your part. And your logic is faulty. You’d have a better argument if Bin Laden’s jihad against the West stemmed from some sort of radical environmentalism, instead of a radical Islamic worldview.
Did Anthony’s post just appear here? I saw Tom’s but I missed Anthony’s until I’d posted.. and missed Anthony’s head-post revision at WUWT. That wasn’t there when I read the story initially.
Apologies, Anthony. My initial reaction was to the initial post. I don’t count, as significant, inline comments for the same reason I don’t count on Mann08’s Supplementary Information. I’m comfortable that any foul has been redressed with the revision in the head post.
SimonH (3), I was crafting my comment as you were posting yours. I obviously echo your take.
Tom (2), I’m not clear on what you disagree on? Can you be more specific?
Simon (5),
My earlier comment to you was addressed to your earlier one. Sorry, I part ways with you here, for reasons I laid out in #4.
All Anthony has demonstrated is that Romm knows how to get his goat. What does he have to gain by sullying himself in a mud wrestling match with Joe Romm, the Rush Limbaugh of climate science? A once rational voice for holding climate science responsible has lost it. Too bad, so sad.
Keith, I’m bouncing around on this one still, but I’m settling much in alignment with your post at #4.
But I think Anthony fell for the temptation of an apparent “double-whammy” that presented itself. I don’t sense that it was a “gotcha” that he went looking to manufacture. It was ill-advised, certainly, but my experience of Anthony conflicts with your comparison of him with Romm. Like Tom, I find Anthony endearing and personable. Like Tom, I don’t see these qualities in Romm or Romm’s posts.
Simon (9),
I don’t have any experience with either Watts or Romm, other than than what I read in their respective blogs. Thus, I write my posts based on their words alone.
You know Keith, sometimes people write things, and then realize that other people see it different than what the intent was. That was the case here.
You had my email you could have asked, but no, you jumped to conclusion.
For my part now, since people obviously misunderstand what I’m trying to say, I’ll simply say this: I made mistake in trying to get my point across, thinking that my adding a clarification was enough.
I also made the mistake of thinking you played fair, you don’t
Keith, that’s what I mean by my experience. A “user experience”.
I guess my view can be explained by my sceptical perspective. It’s not just Romm’s tone that turns me off, its his vindictive attitude towards me for my scepticism. I acknowledge my bias.
Anthony (11):
It’s astonishing to me that you’re somehow galled at my conduct re: my post. I’m saying straight out: you’re the one playing dirty–with your your post and your tacked on rationale.
And I don’t understand this bit about me supposed to be emailing you before I post. Do you do that with Romm or anyone else before you write a post? Hey, am I getting you right on this one?
At any rate, there’s absolutely no question in my mind what you were aiming for in that Bin Laden/Romm post. So if I don’t have any confusion over this, why email you?
And you make out like I’m the one being unfair, when others over at your site are trying to similarly make sense of your post, as well.
I think you thought you had a two-fer on your hands–the British video fiasco and Bin Laden’s latest pronouncement.
How about really asking yourself why people are “misunderstanding” your post? Instead of, say, being reflexively defensive.
Keith, I made the mistake of thinking that since we had directly corresponded before, you might ask what my intent was beforehand. As I said, your interpretation is wrong, and I admit my mistake in not making myself clear. I won’t make the mistake again of thinking you might use email first, when it’s so much easier to simply fire off an angry missive.
Since you seem to somehow “know” what was inside my head when I was writing, we’ll just have to disagree then.
Anthony (14), there’s nothing “angry” about my “missive.” And while you think I’ve “misinterpreted” your post, I actually think you were pretty clear.
Your repeated explanations for the reaction to your post remind me of those carefully worded apologies we so often hear when someone (politicians especially) steps over the line: I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That wasn’t my intent.
Let me say this much: I appreciate that you’ve engaged in a back and forth–both here and at your site.
Hi Keith,
I’m one of those lurkers, breaking cover.
I think you choose good topics and I greatly enjoyed the interview with, and participation of the marvellous Judith Curry.
However, in comparing Romm with Watts, you are being more than a tad generous to Joe Romm, to the detriment of your status as a honest broker. I think you are unnecessarily harsh on Watts in your exchanges above.
Regarding the 10:10 story, didn’t bother to read it – not the kind of topic I visit WUWT for.
Cheers, and back to lurking
Probably strange coming from hot-headed ol’ me, but maybe you two ought to dial it back a bit.
Both of you are men of pretty obvious good will. Try assuming it of the other and you’ll figure a way out of this.
Anthony Watts:: “In case somebody misunderstands, it should be clearly understood that it is not my intent to compare these two AGW proponents to OSBL..AGW proponents that don’t want this sort of bad publicity connected with their movement, IMO should distance themselves and their organizations from OSBL.”
So you very helpfully highlight this story, which you say got buried due to other ructions. How grateful we are for your guidance.
Anthony, this is just another example of your dog-whistle style of populist politics. You give the troops a nod and a wink, and they do the dirty work, while you can protest: Look! Clean hands.
If you don’t want people to make associations, don’t dangle the temptation in the first place. And of course the WUWT thread contains the usual invective, which was present long before the recent unfortunate video. Your followers only need a nudge to get them going, and you supply the nudge.
OSB – AGW -Stevenson Screens-OMG
David (16),
Thanks for your comment. Not sure if you’re been a consistent enough of reader to know this, but nobody could ever accuse me of going easy on Romm.
Tom (17), as I said (10) in an earlier comment, I’m only going by what I read. You also have not clarified yet what you’re disagreeing with: my assertions or Watt’s post?
Brendan H (18): Yes, this is the argument I was making here.
Anthony,
time for a little experiment? Try not to think of an elephant. Just don’t think of an elephant. Sooooo, what are you thinking of, right now? Elephants?
Deciding to cover a topic at all is already an editorial decision taken, that will influence the mind of your readers. Bring up two unrelated topics, state they are unrelated, and a good portion of your readership _will_ consider them related nonetheless. It’s just human nature. So if you don’t want people to make a connection, don’t ask them to think about that connection in the first place.
KK
You are wrong about Watts.
Romm did the exact same thing I picked on Lazar for, in the previous thread.
Of course you think I’m wrong, Shrub. just like all the loyalists in Romm’s tribe think I’m wrong about him, too.
“It is almost as embarrassing as the 10:10 video, because, well, who would want this guy to align with their cause?”
and
“In case somebody misunderstands, it should be clearly understood that it is not my intent to compare these AGW proponents to OSBL in any possible way.”
Clear contradiction, made after the fact, and after others caught on. The comparison was overt, and it doesn’t help Watt’s case, that this post was in response to Romm’s association.
Mr Watts writes that this “embarrassing” story was “rather buried in the climate news cycle“. As he then admits that a) it shouldn’t discredit “the green crowd” yet b) is nonetheless liable to do so — why the heck did he exhume it?
I am not a Watts loyalist. In this instance, I happen to agree with him.
I cannot be a Romm loyalist even if I wanted to – he just deletes or delays my comments
You are unjustly harsh on Watts. If that is the way you see his actions – fine then. But the characterization “Romm and Watts are two sides of the same coin” is wrong. Romm and Watts are two sides of different coins. So, it is not some automatic reaction.
Did I spring up to defend Watts everytime you criticize him – in the same fashion I am doing now?
Romm made sure he took some digs at Watts – for what? for WUWT commenters being angry about the ten-ten video? The anger was not without a reason was it?
If you really want to get a feel for both the websites, you should start commenting on their posts.
I’ve made my share of sincere attempts to not play the so-called tribal games. For a long time, I commented only on RC – only to be deleted, snipped etc. I’ve tried Deltoid, DeepClimate and maybe a few others. It just wont work for the same reason.
Just because someone is strongly skeptical of the climate thing, it does not make them a member of any tribe. I think you and Dr C made a great disservice by popularizing this notion.
Okay, Shub (26), if you’re not a Romm loyalist, then take off your ideological blinders.
It’s so clear cut what Watts is doing with this post that only those blinded by their hatred of Romm or the AGW crowd cannot see it.
Oh, and what do you possibly mean by this: “If you really want to get a feel for both the websites, you should start commenting on their posts.”
If I’m not commenting on Anthony’s post in this case, then what am I doing?
I think Anthony’s feeling pressure to keep WUWT an active site, with lots of news coming in constantly. He has said himself that the key to success in media is to keep things rolling in all the time. I’d kind of wish that he could be a bit more picky choosy about the stuff he’s going to write about, for instance- let’s keep Bin Laden out of this. I would agree with Keith that this is a bit of a two-fer with the 10:10 thing, even if this wasn’t Anthony’s prime reason for writing. It may have been fairly unconscious. Since Anthony has responded, I will take his word for it (I can’t presume to understand peoples real intentions) but I wish he would be a bit more careful. I would hate for WUWT to be seen on the level of CP, as ‘two sides of the same coin’ as Keith says. Maybe Anythony could reflect on this a bit. Being popular is great, but WUWT became popular in the first place for different reasons than cheap point scoring over rivals.
Having said that, I would opine that there have been probably a few too many threads at Keith’s here which seem to be a little too obsessive about what other bloggers are saying about each other. I hope that Keith, you too are not falling into this trap. Just as we don’t like to see Romm put down Anthony in every single post he makes, and Anthony putting down Romm, similarly we don’t need to see Keith putting down both Romm and Anthony. This can all be viewed as point scoring, atleast when it becomes repetitive like this.
As I write in an update above in the post, Romm opines briefly on this episode and true to form, plays his own “association” card:
“Memo to Watts: You know your smear-fest has hit a new low when one of your own “˜tribal’ members, Keith Kloor, calls you out.”
Well, kk, I guess you’ve been anointed as one of the tribe. Same thing happened to me shortly after I started blogging. The Rommulans and Deltoids made one push to see if I could be converted and then I was dubbed part of the Dark Side.
I disagree with Anthony’s post and with your characterization of both him and it (and probably WUWT, for that matter).
What’s wrong with the post is that it has two themes and doesn’t link them successfully. Anthony is calling Romm out again and is also noting bin Laden’s statement. He links the statement to the 10:10 video adequately, but should have saved his statements about Romm for another post.
I know that I’ve done the same thing on other topics. I’ll bet money that you’ve done that. And I know that Romm has done that.
But Anthony is not like Joe. Not in content, not in style, not in attitude. Anthony’s content emphasizes material that calls into question much of the stuff that people like Joe have been trying to shove down our throat. But he posts contrary opinions, is generally a gentleman and is trying (successfully, IMO) to juggle one of the most popular websites around with a very active and difficult schedule.
Joe Romm has one of the best looks at green technology in the business. Too bad he thinks he has the mission in life to direct the editorial agenda for the rest of the planet. He writes memos…. I mean, c’mon. Who writes memos these days? Even Jack Welch was using emails before he hung ’em up…
Romm is mean in spirit and in action. He believes he has the power and the mission to anoint or excommunicate people from the discourse that he daily makes less civilized. He makes his judgements based on congruence with a failed agenda and a closed view of the science.
He’s a cheap political hack getting paid to push an agenda and he republishes favorable material and insults people who disagree.
I think the differences between the two are pretty clear.
KK
Anthony’s main point was clear to me:
Do you want to be on a side to which bin Laden aspires to belong to?
It is funny that this bearded old troll, living out in the mountains, out of contact with humanity in general, who is keeping in touch with anonymous messages that appear over the internet – believes in global warming.
And what you are doing now, is commenting about their posts. Comment on them, in their blogs.
There is a common lukewarmer misperception – both ‘sides’ are attacking me, so I must be right. It doesn’t work that way.
Shub –
If that was Anthony’s “point” it’s a darned ludicrous one. Bin Laden believes/believed in God but Christians, Muslims and Hindus shouldn’t reject theism ‘cos they share/shared it with the sod. He must think/have thought that facial hair is cool but Matt Groening/Rolf Harris/Anthony Watts needn’t leap for electric razors. Besides, a) it might not be him (as I’m strongly implying, he’s quite liable to be at least six feet under) and b) of course people who aren’t keen on the West would believe it – it reflects badly on the West!
Shub, this is the problem. There is absolutely nothing to connect Western climate alarmism and Bin Laden. That you (and others) perceive that Anthony HAS identified a connection (and that it exists, is real, yada) is Keith’s point.
Despite Anthony’s corrective update, people are still making the link courtesy of Anthony’s post. This isn’t good. It isn’t right. It’s wrong and it’s damaging to Anthony.
It would be better if Anthony would “disappear” the post because, unless and until it can be framed without being misconstrued in the way YOU’RE receiving it, it shouldn’t be there. I guess it was a non-story which was made into a very wrong story.
I think another point which can be make in Anthony’s favour is that I’ve probably never seen him bring left/right politics into the debate. If Anthony had ever bashed lefties I probably would have known about it, since I tend to sympathise with the left more than the right. As an American (Watts, not me), I’ve never heard him attacking Obama. In fact, I’m not even sure where Anthony’s political sympathies lie. I’ve never seen him as ‘left wing’ but he hasn’t given any evidence to me that he is ‘right wing’. This is incredibly refreshing in the GW debate, because the great majority it revolves around right-left divides. Joe Romm on the other hand, seems to wear his politics on his sleeve, and even his site is called Climate ‘Progress’. Romm seems much more of a political animal than Watts, who comes across as more of a political agnostic, in line with his skeptical agnosticism.
It seems to me that regardless of Watt’s intent and how well (or poorly) it was worded, the question raised remains valid. Should the high profile proponents of global warming theory distance themselves from the statements of Osama bin Ladin on climate in the same manner that they have distanced themselves from the 10:10 video. Having had an amateur interest in climate for this last year, and having paid close attention to the dogma of terrorists, bin Ladin included for over a decade, I say the answer is a resounding “yes”.
In Osama’s vision of the the future as he would have it, he stands in front of a class of children and begins the lesson with a prayer. Upon noticing that some of the children are less than enthused with the prayer he has chosen, he produces a small box with a red button”¦
Osama’s ideology is identical to that expressed in the 10:10 video, only the “religion” is different. Those in the warmist community who have distanced themselves from the 10:10 video should rightly be asked to do the same in regard to statements from Al Queda attributed to Osama bin Ladin, regardless if he be alive or dead. The producers of the 10:10 have set one foot on the path that bin Ladin and his ilk have travelled for years. Those who repudiate the 10:10 video should repudiate bin Ladin as well, if for no other reason than to underscore the path they have set one foot upon, and to state in no uncertain terms;
“step back”
“Patchy is no longer part of the solution to telling the world about climate science. He is part of the problem. ”
Uggh. Everytime I see this kind of thing written now I will probably think back to that horrible 10:10 ad.
Whoops- wrong thread, wrong blog!
Please delete abov thanks, K
Shub is not being truthful about his posts at Deltoid. I did not delete his posts — anyone who cares can read them there. Nor is it correct for him to suggest that his posts were sincere, with him posting demands that I explain what Leake did wrong when I had already done that.
Lovely blog you have there Tim.
Stu, you would have had a better reception on my blog if you hadn’t come across as completely insincere.
Tom Fuller,
“Watts is a much gentler person and poster […] Both of you are men of pretty obvious good will.“
I wonder if this is the Anthony Watts who promoted Feht’s labelling of scientists and AGW believers as “cockroaches”, questioned the patriotism of his notable climate science bloggers, and together with Joe D’Aleo in the ‘station dropout’ fiasco, called scientists working at NOAA frauds… after it was made clear the basis of the fraud claim was theoretically and empirically wrong, disappeared the accusation but issued no retraction or apology?… whose site has a track record of similar behavior?
So, Tim, being sincere – does that mean I agree with what you and the fellow commenters write at Deltoid? I hope not.
I’ve mentioned this at your blog, and I have some of the threads saved, where my comments appeared and then went down the drain. One comment was delayed, by about two days – I got to look at a grey screen which gave me some kind of a moderation message. Of course, you did not delete all my comments.
I asked for where, in all your posts about Leake, you explain what Leake did wrong. You hadn’t done that, nor have done so yet. The best ‘explanation’ you offered in of your posts was something like ‘Leake already knew that the IPCC was right,…because….Nepstad told him’. That doesn’t count as a explanation.
Simon:
You said: There is absolutely nothing to connect Western climate alarmism and Bin Laden
There is. They both believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
bin Laden: “The number of victims caused by climate change is very big”¦ bigger than the victims of wars,”
Tim
The people at Deltoid, think you are insincere, by merely disagreeing with them..
ie 10:10 thinking…
what to do with these people…… (Franny 10:10)
Shub,
“Do you want to be on a side to which bin Laden aspires to belong to?”
Nonsense. AGW is a question of empirical truth. Gravity is empirically true. It doesn’t matter that bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin and the Devil also believe in gravity. It is cowardice to believe in empiricism but modifying such beliefs out of fear that some propagandist will say ‘but X also believes in Y’.
Shub (31):
You write that Anthony’s point was clear: “Do you want to be on a side to which bin Laden aspires to belong to.”
You’re the second person day today (Romm being the first) who has made my case, which Simon picked up on in #33.
As for how I should comment on their posts–in their own posts. Well, thanks for that clarification. Now go and look at the respective threads where this conversation is also happening, and you’ll see that I’m doing that as well.
But just so I’m clear: is it okay by you if I comment on their posts at my own blog, too?
Shub, Barry, I could care less what you think of Lambert’s blog, or how you’re treated there. Let’s stay on topic in this thread–which is about Anthony’s Bin Laden/Romm post.
By being sincere do you mean that I should have just pretended that I don’t have some skeptical concerns? That’s a strange form of sincerity- pretending to be something you aren’t.
I don’t see anyway what my position on AGW has to do with the comment I gave on the 10:10 video. That was a very small discussion that started out at CP, and went no further than the poster Franks response that I was an ‘inactivist sock puppet’.
I was analysing the film in the same way that anyone would, from the point of view of what kind of message it was giving across to people. I wasn’t trying to look at this as a skeptic or AGWer, I was just giving an opinion on what I saw. I was trying to articulate what I felt what most people would see in there, which I concluded was concerning and very damaging. But my newfound reputation as an ‘inactivist sock puppet’ followed me straight into your blog, and then your audience just churned out the cookie cutter responses. I could see then that I was certainly in the wrong place. (I prefer conversations).
So yes, I tried to be sincere, by giving previous posters a description of where my current thinking is on things. I never pretended to ‘share the values of a group’ in the way a ‘concern troll’ apparently does. I made it pretty clear that I thought the video was disgusting, where you apparently found it funny. This seems evidence to me of a communicated difference in values. Not every environmentalist is 100% signed up to AGW orthodoxy Tim, also- not every ‘skeptic’ is against actions being taken on climate change. I think this must have been somewhat confusing for your group to process. The one comment I got back which wasn’t a ‘concern troll’ comment I interpreted that they must have thought I was a right-wing person. Also, not true.
I would give your blog another chance, but it seems that environmental supporters with caveats about the science are not really welcome. That’s fine with me. Plenty of other places to go.
And, sorry Keith for going OT.
Anthony is sweet like a child… he doesn’t know when he’s doing wrong.
People seem to have missed Keith’s link pointing to Anthony’s track record of demagoguing this type of story.
Lazar, I agreed that Anthony was out of line with that headline, and said so. That was, until a couple of days ago when I noticed that people were laughing along with the 10:10 ad (Franny’s apology response that ‘many people found it extremely funny, and ‘some’ didn’t. Yeah right) This is definitely a ‘when warmistas attack’ moment for me. Attacks can be psychological as well as physical, and that video is an attack. Anthony wasn’t justified beforehand when he made that comment. Now I think he’s justified, unless Franny and others can be shown to be truly remorseful about what they’ve produced here. But they don’t seem to be, in the slightest.
Keith.
No warning to Tim then, coming here and calling people insincere……. (40#)
I’m pretty angry still about 10:10…
(notthe gore, but the mindset behind it…)
Being called a deniar to your face, in my local community, makes bloging feel like all is roses. That mindset, beneath contempt if you disagree with us is a major part of the thinking.
On topic, would have been best if Watts had saved the bin laden story for a separte post ( a lot of pole are bit angry at the moment) and take it from me that is very sincere….
I feel a strongly worded email to the BBC coming on and my MP, and the CEO of Sony and O2 (10:10 sponsors)
“But just so I’m clear: is it okay by you if I comment on their posts at my own blog, too?”
Keith,
If you post regularly at WUWT, you’d see why Romm and Watts are not ‘two different sides of the same coin’. Tom’s post above – my thoughts about Watts are along similar lines. That’s all I wanted to convey.
I don’t know,….I only responded to Tim above because he had to come in here and called me ‘insincere’. I did not slag off on him or his blog on my own. Please read what I wrote about Deltoid above.
Anyway, I think I’ve had enough of being rapped on the knuckles repeatedly. It has happened far too many times now. Bye.
I quite caring what bin Ladin said or thought on 9/12. I don’t care if he’s in favor or against the tenets of climate activism. He wants to kill me. I want to kill him. We can save polite discussion for the afterlife.
I care what Joe Romm, Anthony Watts and 10:10 say and do. They are part of civilized society, accept (at least titularly) the norms of discussion, debate and democratic change. Osama bin Laden, despite a good upbringing and every chance to be otherwise, is a barbarian. When he acts like a barbarian, we are forced to deal with its consequences–but not to analyze his drivel.
When Romm, Watts and 10:10 act wrongly (none of them rise to anything close to the level of bin Ladin, and gee, how many different ways can I spell his name?), it is of greater danger to our society, which depends for its existence, not on our ability to respond to ben Luden, but on our ability to respond to each other.
Anthony probably posted in haste and put too much in one post. Most of his work is far different in tone. I’ve never met him, but he has acted like a gentleman with me.
Romm exceeds Anthony’s post of last night on a daily basis. He acts like a thug and writes like he is dictating the agenda. On Anthony’s worst day he doesn’t stoop to the level of Joe Romm.
10:10? I say let’s wait and see. They did something that is really destructive with their video, but it looks like they had lots of help. I still shudder to think of yet another piece of media drivel that encourages children to behave badly towards each other, but I’m willing to see if they learn from the experience.
Tom
Have you read 10:10’s apology, sorry that some people wer offended…..
They have learned nothing…they are not capable of thinking that other people can be nice,sensible rational people, that disagree with them….
I don’t give a stuff about the blood and gore… it is the mindest…
I have BEEN looked at like that.. In the UK, things have gone MUCH further in this mindset.. School textbooks, departments of state, wherever you look, the UK and EU is fully signed up..
Franny and chums are fully members of the elite london ‘luvvie’ circuit mixing with people, the camerons, the cleggs, millibands, part of the NGO’s, coproate sponsor world (look at their business sign ups) that I will never meet.
That is why the disconnect between UK and US bloggers, in the EU/UK the poltics are settled, they are just trying to find ways to deal with the afflicted (Franny’s words)
“10:10? I say let’s wait and see. They did something that is really destructive with their video, but it looks like they had lots of help.”
I am angry with this group, but for some reason I seem to have even more anger towards The Guardian for supporting it. I’m not sure why really. It’s probably due to the level of mainstream acceptability that The Guardian enjoys, while 10:10 is still establishing its reputation. It’s funny how our established media seem so out of touch with their own readers (100’s of recommendations condemning the ad, while The Guardian was entirely blind about what was about to happen). It’s as if the mainstream is out of touch with the mainstream, like politicians who jump on bandwagons for a once vital issue which is years out of date.
Seeing a couple of short interviews with Franny, she seems like a nice person, and obviously very passionate. I haven’t seen the Age of Stupid yet so am unfamiliar with her other work. This 10:10 thing is certainly a stinker though. It’s a wonder to me how otherwise nice people can produce and enjoy such horrible trash. Seems like she has a few potentially very dangerous social blindspots which need working on.
<blockquote>There is. They both believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
bin Laden: “The number of victims caused by climate change is very big”¦ bigger than the victims of wars,”</blockquote>
Shub – dude – who cares? Hitler was a veggie but that says sod all about meat eating. Kim Jong-il likes movies but not all film-fans are would-be tyrants. Genghis Khan thought grass was green but one can make this observation without the vaguest desire to conquer most of Asia.
Barry (54):
If I hear one more time how you’re getting the stink eye in the supermarket, I think I’m going to self-detonate. I find it odd how you personal you take this stuff.
Tom (53):
1) You pull your punches with Watts because he’s nice to you.
2) You’re taking the video too literally. It was meant to be humorous. But as many others have noted, the humor was at odds with the context.
Also, I think the Brititsh video was striving for the same sweet spot that the Super Bowl commercial last year achieved. I thought that commercial was hilarious, though if you read the post I just referenced, you’ll see that I was in a minority (at least if you consider me to have a greenish tint).
Keith, to the extent that I pull any punches, I pull my punches with Anthony because he’s nice to everyone–not just me.
When I disagree with him, which is frequently, he… publishes… my… disagreements… as… guest… posts…
When I disagree with Joe Romm, he writes guest posts about my being lower than whale shit and censors my comments.
Do ya see the difference?
Keith,
Different people see a different message in the 10:10 film.
Could you summarise the message that you see in the film? One sentence please.
“he’s nice to everyone”
NOAA scientists multiply accused of fraud without grounds.
“guest posts […] whale shit”
cockroaches
“Do ya see the difference?”
not really
Lenin infamously said: “Those who are not with us are against us!”.
The revolutionaries of all countries think alike. Of course Romm considers you a member of the WUWT tribe.
Bad blogger, no link.
“The revolutionaries of all countries think alike. Of course Romm considers you a member of the WUWT tribe.”
Might as well get used to it Keith.
They just don’t like us 🙂
On a serious note, this seems like standard strategy for Romm. Romm hates Watts, and you pick on Romm, so he must probably hate you too. Therefore Romm conveniently labels you along with Watts and you both go in the Romm hate folder. You look in the folder, and all the portrait photos are the same, and all the descriptions too. Just the names are different.
It’s a simple system.
Hello Keith and others. I have been drawn to “Climate Progress” via the “10:10 video” story, and thence to this site. I’d like to make a few comments.
First off – I attempted, on Climate Progress, to challenge Bill McKibben with the assertion that the self-righteous “we’re out to save the planet, we’re on the side of science, you are all wrong-thinking anti-science deniers” attitude that he and other alarmists promote is exactly the attitude reflected in the infamous 10:10 video. Disown it all he likes (and rightly, and justifiably so), but he (and others) need to face up to the fact that it is their attitude, their rhetoric, that leads to that sort of conclusion.
Every one of my posts on that subject was deleted, some within minutes of my uploading them. Every one.
Through that direct experience, and reading through some other material on Climate Progress, it is clear to me that Joe Romm is a propagandist and a censor of dissenting opionions – particularly those (like mine, I like to think) that pose difficult challenges to their self-congratulatory groupthink.
As a rational and reasonably educated person who is skeptical of some of the alarmist claims, I know that I cannot rely on Climate Progress as a source of information.
Anthony Watts, on the other hand, is a whole different flavour of blogger, for reasons which many other posters here have explained.
Keith, for you to describe Watts and Romm as “two sides of the same coin” is frankly absurd and a shallow analysis.
As for the Bin Laden thing – no, I’m sorry, even the original non-updated version of Anthony’s post strikes me as anything like an attempt at “guilt by association”. In fact, all you seem to be able to call on for evidence is a single comment by an anonymous poster on WUWT, to whom Anthony promptly responded with a clarification (that did not need to be made for any reader with even a passing competence in English comprehension).
There is a valuable point in the Bin Laden story, though, and it’s not just about challenging Romm et al to disown OSBL.
The evangelical and moralistic hysteria about AGW that is promoted by Romm, McKibben et al, on what is – or should be – a largely technical and scientific discussion, lends itself quite nicely to third world despots, rent seekers and tyrants to press their case to an uncritical western audience – and, worse, to recruit others to their cause in their own region.
Is this the fault of the alarmists? Not entirely, of course, and it would be unreasonable and unfair to blame them for the words of an OSBL. And neither were (some) alarmists directly responsible for, or associated with, the sentiments expressed in the 10:10 video.
But if you’re looking for “two sides of the same coin”, Keith, you’ll find better examples there than in trying to compare Watts and Romm.
Stu, the reason why you came across as insincere is that you presented your self as expressing the view of “the middleground position” when you were plainly a hardcore skeptic (calling folks “eco-fascistic weirdos”).
Keith, Joe Romm is wrong to group you in the Watts tribe when you are a loyal member of the RPJr tribe. My earlier comment applies to this post as well.
Anthony Watts wrote: “sometimes people write things, and then realize that other people see it different than what the intent was.”
Let me start by saying that I found the 10-10 video appalling (as I also stated at Jeff Id’s blog) and an extremely dumb move PR-wise, as it will do more to alienate than to garner support. That said, I think Watt’s statement applies to the video makers just as well.
I agree with Keith’s (eg his comment 45) take on Watts’s reacting to this:
“You write that Anthony’s point was clear: “Do you want to be on a side to which bin Laden aspires to belong to.””
What a dispicable tactic.
I can’t relate to Romm’s comment calling Keith a tribalist member of Watts. I don’t see Keith like that as all, and it’s probably an expression of an attitude like “all my enemies must be friends with each other” which doesn’t make any sense.
Tom, contrary to what you claim, you are not “equidistant between the two” (Watts and Romm). See e.g. your comment 30. How nice has Watts been to e.g. Tamino (the flag wearing thing) or AGW proponents in general (see eg Lazar’s post 60)? You’re excusing a lot of behavior from him that you would probably strongly condemn had it come from Romm. I acknowledge that your opinions on AGW are not the same as those of Watts, but to call your position equidistant is a big stretch.
Sorry Keith, but- Tim
No, I said that via this ad, people with AGW concerns ‘come across’ as eco fascistic weirdos. That is the communication of this ad. To laugh at this ad was missing the point, imo. I never said anyone there were eco fascists.
And please put yourself in the position of someone without any kind of preconceived opinion on climate change. How are these people going to read this ad?
That’s all I am saying.
Stu #50,
“This is definitely a “˜when warmistas attack’ moment for me.”
I appreciate your concerns, seriously. The video makes me deeply uneasy… but I still disagree with the generalization when many on ‘my’ ‘side’, and particularly the scientists, have trashed it…
Michael Tobis “vile misanthropy”
James Annan “crass”
Bart Verheggen “sick”
Bill McKibben “disgusting”
Joe Romm “grossly offensive”
Yep, ok. I hate generalistions so I am not going to stick to my guns here. I am altogether happy with the way that the video has been trashed across the board. I can even grudgingly accept that some people may even find it funny, it’s just that I have a very hard time sympathising with or even understanding that view. It’s an enormous stretch to me that this is ‘humour’, even if it is being classified as such.
I do think that there needs to be some responsibility leveled at the producers here. People need to be held accountable for the kinds of messages that they’re feeding the public. Again, the intention of this was to go viral, meaning that this is something that everybody was meant to see, including kids. Kids may be more sophisticated these days but the simple fact is that we, more than ever, navigate and understand our world through media. When the Guardian can be shown to be supporting something like this, even encouraging it, things aren’t looking good. At all.
mt writes a thoughtful post…
“In a society where social connections are frayed and community leadership has vanished, we losing track of ways of collectively processing information rationally. In the end people vote with their gut, having no time to engage their brains and nobody sensible to talk things through with.”
Stu,
“It’s an enormous stretch to me that this is “˜humour'”
agreed, I don’t think there’s any humor in it at all.
“I do think that there needs to be some responsibility leveled at the producers here. People need to be held accountable for the kinds of messages that they’re feeding the public.”
agreed
“including kids”
yup that’s a major concern… negative effects of repeat exposure to images of extreme violence are well studied and understood… never mind memetic messaging that runs against democratic and cooperative societies
“When the Guardian can be shown to be supporting something like this, even encouraging it, things aren’t looking good. At all.”
agreed absolutely
Stu,
FWIW, I thought the response you received on Deltoid was out of line.
Cheers, Lazar.
Hmm, I see now you’re copping it! 🙁 🙂
Good on Mary as well there. She’s saying the same thing that I tried to.
Yeah, nice blog Tim’s got there.
Tom: “Keith, to the extent that I pull any punches, I pull my punches with Anthony because he’s nice to everyone”“not just me.”
Everyone? Including his opponents?
“When I disagree with him, which is frequently, he”¦ publishes”¦ my”¦ disagreements”¦ as”¦ guest”¦ posts”¦
When I disagree with Joe Romm, he writes guest posts about my being lower than whale shit and censors my comments.
Do ya see the difference?”
Yes. Anthony is clever, the consummate PR man, whereas Romm is a klutz, much like the 10:10 people who made the appalling No Pressure video.
The fact that Anthony is pleasant to you says nothing about his attitude to other people. I’m sure Joe Romm is also pleasant to his friends and allies. Change your tune on global warming and you might find a different reception at WUWT.
Having said that, Romm’s ranting style and apparent heavy censorship has probably lost him a good share of his potential audience.
See the 10:10 founder Franny Armstrong:
My carbon footprint has shot up since I’ve become a successful campaigner
The only thing bigger than her carbon footprint is her ego
Keith,
Suggesting Romm and Watts are the same is just wrong.
I guess I do agree Anthony should consider that “his tribe” -which I will acknowledge I may be a member – may misinterpret/run with stuff and therefore he should be more careful what he posts. I think even he acknowledged that but you know something, he’s a blogger, not a leader of the free world. Yours and other posters direct insinuation that he does this as some form of “PR Strategy” is completely speculative.
Oddly enough, the 10:10 video is a parody of how fanatics like Watts views those concerned about the environment. And within a few days, Watts illustrates their point by comparing environmentalists to bin Laden.
Is it possible for Keith to do a post that criticizes a contrarian without slamming Romm? Is it really that hard? Certainly, he’s got many posts slamming Romm and others supporting the scientific consensus on climate change that are absent of criticisms of contrarians. Here, he starts out good, but then can’t resist asserts Romm is in the same category as Watts as far as tactics go, but fails to actually provide an actual genuine Guilt by Association example that Romm has done, and of course nothing remotely in the same ball park.
Stu: “As an American (Watts, not me), I’ve never heard him attacking Obama. In fact, I’m not even sure where Anthony’s political sympathies lie. I’ve never seen him as “˜left wing’ but he hasn’t given any evidence to me that he is “˜right wing’. This is incredibly refreshing in the GW debate”
I’m not sure who you’re trying to fool.
“It has been said that Obama is the worst president since Jimmy Carter”
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wattsupwiththat+obama&aq=f&aqi=m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Not that there’s anything wrong with being a political activist. That’s everyone’s right. Watts is an active member of his local Butte County Republicans, and once ran for office. Let’s just not pretend otherwise.
I also find concern trolling to be rather cowardly.
NewYorkJ (79)
You write: “Is it possible for Keith to do a post that criticizes a contrarian without slamming Romm?”
Fair point. But two things:
In this case, they were joined together in Anthony’s post, so I suppose it was easy for me to dish it out to both. But obviously, the bit about Romm was a throwaway in the last line. The bulk of my criticism was directed at Watts.
The other thing I just don’t get: why do most of their respective allies react so defensively when their guy gets called out? But I will say in this case, I have noticed that a number of Watts sympathizers have agreed with me. I’m not really seeing that from the other side, though the incredibly decent Bart isn’t afraid to call a spade a spade.
Watts is just like you and me except his blog took off and he handled it well.
Keith,
“I’m not really seeing that from the other side”
Romm was wrong to call you a member of Watt’s tribe. And I’ve agreed with you before on Romm’s demagoguing of issues.
That makes two!
Lazar, you’re right–and while I don’t know who you are, I appreciate that you’re willing to set aside partisanship and call it the way you see it. You’re in good company with Bart.
Bart: “I can’t relate to Romm’s comment calling Keith a tribalist member of Watts. ”
I think it stems from various writings of McIntyre and Judith Curry regarding “the Team” and “tribes”. Steve views any climate scientist who supports the idea the recent decadal hemispheric temperatures are likely unprecedented over the last millenium or two (nearly all of them) to be part of “the Team”. That is how their “tribe” is defined. Judith’s definition is a bit different, having more to do with who they associate with, praise, or criticize. Romm’s use of the word “tribe” seems to originate from her.
JR: She invented the whole tribe thing to pigeonhole people, including me and most climate scientists.
—
JR: I was using the term tribe the way she seems to. It does not mean people who share the same scientific and/or policy views. After all, she lumps me in with Hansen “” and while I have far too much respect for Hansen to ever claim to be in his “tribe,” it is widely known that I do not share his scientific and/or policy views. She has also lumped me in with RealClimate, and again, I don’t share all of their views on the science “” and they tend to avoid policy entirely.
No, tribes are determined by whose faults you gloss over. That seems to be Curry’s point about the IPCC. And THAT is why I wrote, “She has joined the WUWT and McIntyre tribe.”
http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/26/judith-curry-warmist/
http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/28/judith-curry-mcintyre-watts/
So, Pielke and Fuller are in the skeptic tribe by the definition Judith (and now Romm) put forth. With a few exceptions, they pretend to support the general scientific consensus but praise fanatics like Watts while slamming every “consensus” scientist they can get their hands on. Is Keith in this “tribe”? This post is an obvious exception, but it’s clear most of his criticism is directed at climate scientists with the occasional post thrown the other way (which always seems to include a poke at Romm for “balance”).
Frankly, I think the whole “tribal” thing pushed by Judith is antagonstic, not very helpful, and certainly not accurate. It comes with it the insinuation of strong bias. As a result, we now have Romm throwing it back at Kloor, Curry, etc. and causing them to take offense.
Tom Fuller,
“Watts is just like you and me”
Except Keith doesn’t publish work accusing scientists of fraud on baseless grounds and then disappear the accusations without retraction or apology, doesn’t highlight as ‘comment of the week’ someone calling scientists “cockroaches”, doesn’t question the patriotism of his opponents, and doesn’t generalize to “warmistas” the violent acts of a nutcase.
NewYorkJ (85).
Whoa, whoa, you’re way off base now. Can you point to where I have been critical of climate scientists in any post, let alone a whole bunch, as you say?
I’ve actually tried staying pretty neutral on this blog, with exceptions for Romm, Watts and political/ideological partisans on both sides. Yes, I have been critical of Michael Tobis (is he the one climate scientist you had in mind; are there others?) probably about a half dozen times, but I respect Michael and not only do I think he knows that, I’ve also lauded him a bunch of times too. He strikes me as a decent guy who sometimes get carried away. But I don’t see him as deliberately malicious, dishonest or calculating. I can’t say the same for members of his tribe who have been known to come over here and yank my chain for being critical of Romm.
And speaking of tribes, I think they are for real. We all belong to them. I’ve said before that if I can be accused of belonging to one tribe (in which I’m biased in favor of), it would journalism. That’s probably why you see me teeing off on Romm as much as I do. That and because hardly anyone else seems willing to.
Keith: “That’s probably why you see me teeing off on Romm as much as I do. That and because hardly anyone else seems willing to.”
I would think that Watts, Fuller, Morano, Pielke, Curry, Lucia, Stoat, Tobis, etc. might be offended by that claim.
If you are to criticize Romm or others, you should be willing to take some criticism as well, and not take such offense, labelling those who dare to defend Dr. Romm as “deliberately malicious, dishonest or calculating”.
NewYorkJ
You say:
“”It has been said that Obama is the worst president since Jimmy Carter””
Ok. Who said that? Watts? Does repeating something someone else says mean that you think it too? I’ve never heard him say that he thinks Obama is a crap president. This may be a lighthearted jibe but it is not an attack. Maybe I could say that since you quoted it, you also think ‘Obama is the worst president since Jimmy Carter.’? Doesn’t make much sense to me.
Those other links are very unfruitful when looking for evidence of attacks on Obama. The most direct one I could find was simply a comical, ironic event when Obama flew into Washington after Copenhagen. Again, not really much in the way of an attack. I thought it was funny, and I’ve got nothing against Obama.
One thing I did find, was this-
“[Update: this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don’t want at WUWT.”
You say:
“Watts is an active member of his local Butte County Republicans, and once ran for office. Let’s just not pretend otherwise.”
Ok, good. I did not know that. Since I didn’t know that, I couldn’t pretend that I didn’t know that. Hey Keith, Watt’s is a Republican!
That’s settled then.
You say:
“I also find concern trolling to be rather cowardly.”
Haha.
NewYorkJ (88): Heh, I hardly think they’ll be offended. Perhaps I should have qualified, though:
no other journalist (much less someone who worked at Audubon magazine for nearly 10 years, and someone who prefers reading Mother Jones to National Review) has been critical of Romm.
Oh, and I’m not taking any offense at people who bare their teeth at me in defense of “Dr. Romm.” I fully recognize it comes with the territory.
This thing about tribes makes an interesting story. Because nobody has a problem with being part of a tribe.
The problem is when other people decide which tribe you’re in without consulting you on the matter. And it gets worse when you say ‘No, I’m not in that tribe’ and they come right back and say ‘Yes you are, and you’re lying about it.’
I’ll bet money that Watts voted for McCain. I don’t care. I voted for Obama and hope to again in 2 years. Who should care?
Sure there’s a lot of Republicans making climate change a domestic political issue. Three years ago there were a lot of Democrats making climate change a domestic political issue.
I didn’t like it when the dems did it. I don’t like it when the reps do it. And I think it’s an insult to the rest of the world, by the way.
When people call me a skeptic, I smile–I know what side they’re on and what they have to ignore to keep their sense of mental balance straight. When they call me a denier, I don’t like it–because of how it cheapens our sense of history. When they call me a warmist, I laugh out loud. I’ve chosen my tribe–the Lukewarmers. But half the crowd doesn’t think Lukewarmers exist and the other half think we have a hidden agenda.
Per my comment in #90, I should note that Tom Yulsman is another journalist who has been willing to take on Romm. Here’s is a classic post from Tom.
I think I may have ticked Anthony off a bit with that comment of mine you mentioned.
When I queried if Fox were fair in claiming the scenes that Fox didn’t show were “even more horrifying” than the classroom scene that they did show Anthony told me to “bugger off”
Sigh, I’m now in the troll bin there.
Tom Fuller scolds Tom Fuller.
“When people call me a skeptic, I smile”“I know what side they’re on”
“The problem is when other people decide which tribe you’re in without consulting you on the matter.”
Tom can determine someone’s tribe through a single word, which is remarkable. Others do a fair amount of analysis on someone’s writings before making a determination. The nice thing about blogging is there is a wealth of history available. One can see hundreds of posts of Tom’s and make a general determination of what his views and biases are.
Consulting with the person who’s being labeled is helpful. Thousands in the Watts congregation have all sorts of labels and “tribe” determinations for certain climate scientists, but it’s doubtful they’ve ever consulted the scientists, other than to send hate mail. Still, it does rely on that person presenting good faith answers as to what they really believe.
“Tribe” doesn’t mean much to me. Keith appears to have created a “Romm defense tribe” or something of that nature. Tribal characteristics include “deliberately malicious, dishonest or calculating”. Tribe matters little. No matter what one’s view of climate science is, one has to have a strong, coherent, consistent, honest, and logically sound argument. From years of observation, I’ve found that people who assert that global warming is not a big problem tend to have arguments consistently lacking these characteristics. One can see many examples here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
NewYorkJ:
I’m still waiting for you to back up this assertion (#85): “it’s clear most of his criticism is directed at climate scientists.”
Haven’t you had time enough to rummage through my archive to come up with some examples?
I also haven’t created any tribes, here. I’ve just observed the obvious–that we all belong to tribes–e.g.,political, sports, religous, etc.
AndrewW (93): Obviously, you haven’t shown sufficient tribal loyalty.
In the second scene of the 10:10 video, I count 3 people getting blown up, not just 2. So in that respect it’s even MORE horrifying.
However, the 2nd scene depicts adults with arguably more authority and thus capability to achieve the 10:10 goal than the hapless kids of scene 1, who suffer for the CO2 crimes of their parents. In that respect you could argue that scene 2 is LESS horrifying because adults are more fully deserving of being blown up.
Or you could simply point out, as Watts does, that your questioning the veracity of Fox News’s claim about the follow-on scene is a diversion, specifically for the purpose of thread derailment. For me, this is by far the more compelling argument.
On the bright side, Andrew, he didn’t call you any names. 😉
NewYorkJ
“Others do a fair amount of analysis on someone’s writings before making a determination.”
Except you don’t, it seems. You’ve certainly got my number, don’t you NYJ.
Oh wait, now I know where I’ve seen you before. You’re in that band, aren’t you? Hmm, what’s it called…? Sincere Tim and the Mindreaders?
Keith: “I also haven’t created any tribes, here. ”
Keith (8/18/10): “If Judith Curry, a climate researcher at Georgia Tech, ever found herself marooned on an island, where the other inhabitants included a tribe of climate skeptics led by Anthony Watts and another tribe of climate scientists led by Gavin Schmidt (whose enforcer, despite being a physicist, was Joe Romm), she’d probably end up living alone in a cave.”
Let’s not pretend you haven’t put people in a box. There’s also the classic false balance argument.
You already answered your own question above, but more broadly, I’d say it extends towards anyone (scientist or not) who asserts that global warming is a problem that requires significant action. They are treated with general contempt, unless of course they are arguing against certain climate. Those who disagree are generally left alone or spoken highly of (with the refreshing exception of extremists like Watts). Political scientist RPJ seems to be somewhat of a demigod here.
Stu,
I’ve seen many of your comments at Deltoid. My assumption is that it’s same Stu.
NewYorkJ (98), I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make with that quote of mine from an older post. It seems pretty clear to me that I characterized everyone accurately there.
Again, though, we see you making an assertion without any citation:
“…but more broadly, I’d say it extends towards anyone (scientist or not) who asserts that global warming is a problem that requires significant action. They are treated with general contempt, unless of course they are arguing against certain climate.
That’s broad, indeed. Now please give me a few posts where this contempt is apparent. If you dig hard enough, you’ll probably be able to detect contempt that I have for a few of the partisans, but it’s not because of any actions they’re advocating, but because of their nasty behavior on this blog or elsewhere.
You really need to do a better job of distinguishing the kinds of things that trigger my criticism.
‘My assumption”
*sigh. You know, you might be correct. But your problem is to assume in the first place. Actually, I’ve only posted a couple of times in one single thread at Deltoid. I’m not sure how many Stu’s there are wandering around over there. I got the label concern troll over one single post I made, my very first post! ;). This was apparently enough to tar me for life and render me irrelevant on anything further that I may have had to say (the red button for Stu). And at CP, I got the label ‘inactivist sock puppet’, again, after only one post (another red button). In both cases, I was trying to be polite, and I was most certainly being sincere. Really, I suspect heavily that this must be a strategy on the part of the people in the blogs you hang out in- label any comment which doesn’t fit 100% with the orthodoxy as insincere/sock puppet and then pile on in the righteous way that you all did. I’m seeing a pattern from other people in this very thread who have expressed the same kind of thing. Tim was quick to dismiss me by hastily misreading my post, I assume on purpose, or maybe he is just blind. This is classic behaviour coming right on the heels of this Green PR disaster which is the 10:10 film. I cannot fail to link to it as instructional. I’ve expressed elsewhere that this is probably how a film like the 10:10 one can come to be in the first place. It’s simple groupthink. Arrogance really. And a shed load of politics. I’m non American (Australian) and have little time for right/left nonsense. You can label me a concern troll but you will simply have no idea about my values unless you actually ask me. No-one asked. No-one cared. Just Kablammo! You all just seem to be egging each other on, stirring each other up.
Prove me wrong, or not. Whatever dude.
Here is an example of Team Think.
Barton Paul Levenson | October 4, 2010 at 9:46 am | Reply
I WISH I’d had referees’ comments. It never got to peer review. They turned it down before that, saying it wasn’t of general enough interest. I would have thought the proposition “if global warming is allowed to continue, human civilization will collapse in the 2050s” would be of interest to everybody, but apparently not.
————————————————-
This was posted over at “Open Mind” http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/vindication/#comments
And only one person mildly disagreed.
So if we do nothing, is civilization doomed and coming to an end in 40-45 years?
I wonder- who else but Franny Armstrong is saying that we need ‘to stabilise the climate system within 4 years, or else’. I’ve actually not heard anybody say that before. Franny may be guilty of original thinking here in this case.
Or am I behind the times?
Dear Stu, I did not say that you were insincere, but rather offered an explanation of why you came across as insincere. I thought you might find this helpful, especially when you show up at a new blog and try to join the conversation, but you seem to be rather attached to your outrage.
Dear Tim,
It cuts both ways.
Someone may appear insincere to you if they come up with some new points when you are rather attached to your blog and its regulars.
You have some good regulars, but they are obviously in love with their own teenager snark.
Regards
Tim Lambert,
“I did not say that you were insincere, but rather offered an explanation of why you came across as insincere.”
I’m afraid you did accuse him of being insincere…
“you presented your self as expressing the view of “the middleground position” when you were plainly a hardcore skeptic (calling folks “eco-fascistic weirdos”).”
That you prefaced the above with claiming him appearing insincere does not modify the former claim.
Secondly, he did not call folks “eco-fascistic weirdos”…
“I think if you want the skeptics and general public to stop seeing you as eco-fascistic weirdos”
By the way, I believe the video and comments by Franny Armstrong are eco-fascistic. Claiming that belief marks someone as an AGW skeptic is a non-sequitur. In fact I’m a dead central 3 C per doubling & impacts necessitating carbon pricing now kinda guy.
Tim Lambert,
If you’ve got time to enough go after Stu for using the label ‘eco-fascistic’, you’ve got time to rap Jeff Huggins for an off-the-wall rant calling ‘Mary’ “inculcated in our imperial mentality”… that’s one hard working pro-active environmentalist your commentors are busily pissing off, and potentially (I hope not) discouraging.
“Dear Stu, I did not say that you were insincere, but rather offered an explanation of why you came across as insincere. I thought you might find this helpful, especially when you show up at a new blog and try to join the conversation, but you seem to be rather attached to your outrage.”
Hi Tim. I’m willing to make peace on this if you are. No I don’t enjoy holding onto anger and resentment, it is not really part of my character. I do think that you and others misjudged me, but on the other hand I acknowledge that it was probably a very ‘raw’ moment for everybody concerned and that the natural response in those kinds of situations is probably going to be one of attack/defense. I also acknowledge that some of the comments directed at me may have been by ‘snarky teenagers’, as Shub suggests. I should have just realised after all that this is the web. I’m cool if you’re cool.
Cheers,
PS, the above post probably gives the impression that I’ve backed down too easily here, or I am not sticking up for myself. I am actually a little embarrassed that this has become about me, and not about my concerns over open debating. I don’t know you Tim, and therefore I am automatically willing to accept that you are a reasonable guy. My motivation here is that I’m prepared to accept reasonableness when it is shown. It’s entirely possible that our motivations are simply incompatible here, in that case there is not much I can really do.
“a little embarrassed”
lol… sorry Stu, I know very well you’re capable of rowing your own boat, and respect you for making peace with Lambert. Perhaps I’m less willing to let him off because I feel his efforts effect ‘my’ ‘side’ (warmists).
NewYorkJ,
You wrote: “Judith’s definition is a bit different, having more to do with who they associate with, praise, or criticize. (“¦) It does not mean people who share the same scientific and/or policy views.”
But these don’t contradict each other. I think many people also include the second part in their won definition of “tribe”, plus I’m not convinced that Judith Curry doesn’t. Could you point us to where she allegedly wrote that she doesn’t include that second part?
I’m afraid I was a bit annoyed at Tim blog’s with respect to one or too regualrs, that wound me up (WOW) – ref ‘No pressure’ video.
BUT I wold like to give TIM credit for running an honest blog.
I had no problems commenting, unlike elsewhere…
Some of the regulars are just good PR for a sceptical case (Ieven tried to make that point), they just do not see it.