Ethon** flew in hungry from Boulder. The guys out there have moved him from his assigned easy, and tasty duties to flying from house to house doing polls on attitudes towards climate change. Not only are folk not very hospitable to a large eagle at the door, but you can hardly find a chopped liver sandwich on a street cart these days, so he dug right into Mom Rabett's best.
Ike Solem and Roger are engaged in a parsing match. Ike asked Roger to predict when global surface temperature would stop rising. Roger replied first that he bets neither with Brian Schmidt nor James Annan. On being pressed a bit, he linked to a book he participated in on prediction science. Ike has not yet asked if the book answers his question.
Ike pointed out
The real problem with politics in climate science if the continuing efforts by the fossil fuel industry, led by ExxonMobil, to distort scientific facts in an effort to deceive the public about the real extent of the problem.Roger didn't want to deal with this, so he asked Ike whether
1. What evidence do you have that that the public is deceived?This has been a tactic that Roger used before about the dangers of tobacco, and one that Eli easily demolished
A rather curious idea is being put forward by Roger Pielke Jr., thatby linking to and quoting from various Surgeon General reports and the scientific publications that were cited therein.In the battle over smoking efforts to deny a link between smoking and health risks seems to have been completely a lost effort.
Eli calls this tactic incurious amazement. The user depends on the other party not following up or stating the question in a way that requires considerable work to dig out. Usually a pretty safe bet, but if by happenstance he meets a large eagle or a Rabett coming down the street, there is an easy retreat to gee, that's amazing, never knew that, or if enough time has passed and everyone else has moved on one can simply ignore the answer. Of course, Banning in Boulder is also a choice. Note the close relationship of incurious amazement to the well know implausible deniability trick popularized in Casablanca (Climate change going on here, I am shocked, shocked)
So the Rabett Institute for Policy Studies, sent poor Eth out on the street. The first thing he found next to some liver souffle (Boulder is a frou frou town) was this April 2006 interesting study from World Public Opinion showing that US attitudes about the reality of climate change significantly lags that in other countries.
As Rabett Run has been pounding, US public opinion on this matter has change considerably over the past year, but there was a lot of catching up to do BECAUSE of the fossil fuel companies investing megabucks convincing the public that there was no such thing as human driven climate change. We speculate based on past performance that Roger has not yet read the Union of Concerned Scientists Report on Exxons bankrolling think tanks.Still, all this pointed the ears at a rather interesting thought. For Eli, Pielke's major insight is that the policy makers are the important constituency. One could conceptualize the Exxonian tactic as immobilize rather than convince public opinion, then elect George Bush. At this, they have been very effective. Eli would suggest that if Roger really wants to answer his question he might look at results from the International Social Survey Programme which the Rabettorium does not have easy access to.
The RabEditors have slightly modified the text.
**Ethon or The Eagle Kaukasios was a gigantic eagle born of the monsters Typhon and Echidna. As punishment for stealing fire from Mount Olympus, Zeus had Prometheus chained to Mount Caucasus, where Ethon was set to gnaw on his liver.
"We speculate based on past performance that Roger has not yet read the Union of Concerned Scientists Report on Exxons bankrolling think tanks."
ReplyDelete...for if he had, he would certainly have let his views be known...
...because he read -- and commented at length on his blog -- about the Royal Society report which said the same thing.
And if the posts regarding the Royal Society's letters are any indication, Pielke clearly disapproved of the Royal Society's actions in that case.
Well yes, thanks for reminding me, but one can hope for the future.
ReplyDeleteMore seriously, the middle is starting to move at light speed and folk will have to speed up or be left in the dust. Others are trying to apply the breaks. Not especially recommended
The original Climate science "Dichtomy" was a fiction perpetuated (if not created) by journalists obsessed with "balance".
ReplyDeleteAnd the apparent "Rush to (re)claim the Middle" is now being driven by a journalist (or perhaps a policy wonk speaking through a journalist).
Jounrnalists are supposed to be unbiased observers, but when it comes right down to it, they love moving and shaking.
Any who doubt this need only look at the names of Bob Woodward's recent books.
Or at Judith Miller's peices on WMD during the leadup to the invasion of Iraq.
"depending on the other party not following up or stating the question in a way that requires considerable work to dig out..[is] Usually a pretty safe bet, but if by happenstance he [Pielke] meets a large eagle or a Rabett coming down the street, there is an easy retreat to gee, that's amazing, never knew that,"
ReplyDeletePielke posted a piece entitled "Climate Determinism lives on" on his blog, where Pielke wrote (in reference to yet another revkin article) that
"For instance, Penn State’s Michael Mann opines:"
and then quoted from the Revkin article
'[Mann] has another theory about why Washington, particularly, has lagged even as some states and cities have moved ahead to limit such emissions. "The East Coast of the United States, and particularly the mid-Atlantic region, did not warm nearly as much as rest of globe over the 20th century," Dr. Mann said. "And that’s where the decision-making is going on."
Andy Revkin, who wrote the article that included the Mann quote sent on which Pielke commented sent the following response in to Pielke (posted on Pielke's blog):
"Believe me, when I was canvassing for comment a lot of climate scientists said precisely what you did -- that politics and culture trumps all in this climate-energy discourse. And they're right.
"Michael Mann's tongue sure seemed planted well in cheek in his Washington comment. Maybe my inartful writing style didn't convey cheekiness sufficiently."
[end Revkin quote]
to which Pielke replied:
Andy,
"Michael Mann was just kidding around? In that case, my mistake, as I thought it was indeed a serious comment."
(gee, that's amazing, never knew that)
I never would have guessed that rabbits would be such astute judges of character(s) -- but Bugs Bunny should have clued me in, I guess.