Sunday, October 15, 2006

Promoted from the comments...

I've been meaning to do this for a long time, snarky bon mots deserve a place in the sun. In a comment on Eli's post "Going off the deep end" Coby Beck points out that

One of the keys to understanding Roger is realizing that as soon as you say "we should do something", you are a policy advocate and as soon as you pick up a phone to tell a friend about your research you are politicizing your science. I find defining things like that a bit less than useless though

9 comments:

ankh said...

This Roger?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=857#comment-52315

Andrew Dessler said...

I think that if Roger finds out that you've been breathing air, then you're also an issue advocate.

David Graves said...

Wow, over there at Climate Audit there's been quite an exchange about motive, attacks, credibility, misquotes, Karl Popper, whether Judith Curry is or is not in a pissing match, or if it's just Greg Holland and Pielke Jr., etc., etc. Took up 250 posts and several days......Deep end doesn't even come close.

Dano said...

The howler monkeys at CA will bear not even the mildest hint of weakness in their preconceived notions, even from a named scientist willing to take a minute or two to listen to their howling. The exchange with her students is most illuminating on the sheer number of tin ears over there.

Best,

D

coby said...

Hey, can we get back to the subject of this post please: me! :)

Thanks for the promotion, Eli!

ankh said...

Hey, Coby, bringing it back to you: Dr. Curry's final two posts signing off at climateaudit contain some wise words that could well, if she'll give you permission, be included in the "How to talk" file.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=857#comment-52757

"... Lindzen ... differentiated “industry stooges” as a separate category, people who were interested in obfuscating the issue towards supporting their own agenda, as opposed to people that are interested in the scientific truth. This is an important distinction, separating the Marshall Institute type reports (many of which are of the stooge nature), vs the more credible scientific scepticism. The challenge is for a bona fide skeptic to steer clear of being associated with stoogedom. ... Gray’s use of the 1970’s global cooling thing is one of the favorite arguments of AGW stoogedom and doesn’t hold up under any analysis (I suspect Gray came up with this on his own, independently of stoogedom PR). So stoogeism is arguably making the job of the real skeptic more difficult. The reverse is also a true. The enviro groups do sort of the same thing but with a somewhat different strategy (although arguably not as effectively), and close alignment with the more extreme enviro advocacy groups can hurt the credibility of pro AGW scientists. As a result of the policy relevance of climate research, all this definitely does get in the way of sorting out the “truth” and uncertainty. This whole issue presents a huge challenge to scientists working on relevant problems (as well as to the public who is trying to make sense of it all)."

and
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=857#comment-52775


Now back to you and yours (grin).

Anonymous said...

and as soon as you write a letter to the editor with one or more of your scientific colleagues, you are taking part in what brad allenby calls 'nightmare science':

according to allenby -- and pielke -- this amounts to unduly using one's standing as a scientist to influence policy outside science.

i guess we need to have the 'science police' to decide when a group of scientists have 'crossed the line' and need to be disciplined with twenty lashes.

Andrew Dessler said...

Just for the record, my comments about Roger were made tongue-in-cheek. While I do not really agree with him on this point, I think it's useful to discuss these issues.

Anonymous said...

and my comments were made tongue in groove.