Thursday, September 10, 2009

The Morano Mumble Jumble

Well, to boost the incoming at the WP, one of their meteorologists, Matt Rogers is now doing the Morano Mumble Jumble. More of the usual. Be good creatures and help him out. Marc is quite pleased

UPDATE: Pass the popcorn

Marc Morano is upset that Andrew Freedman, a blogger with the Washington Post, won't debate him about climate change. Not wanting to see Marc left without a debating partner, I'd be happy to debate Marc Morano on climate policy. Were we to do an Oxford-style debate I'd propose the following resolution:
Resolved: Governments around the world should adopt a low carbon tax to finance technological innovation and other policies focused on decarbonizng the global economy. At the same time enhanced investments are needed around the world on policies focused on improving resilience and adaptive capacity.
How about it Marc?
Although one of the commentors, Stan, made a useful point that also applies to Plimers dancing away from Monbiot
One of the biggest shortcomings of debate formats is that the debaters end up talking past each other because they define terms differently or want to stress completely different aspects of the issue (or fail to critique each other's "evidence"). I think the debate would likely be more interesting if the two of you both agreed to narrow the issue to one genuinely in dispute and published "briefs".

I guess the model for appellate courts works very well. The issues on appeal are specific, appellant files a brief, appellee responds, appellant replies to the response. Then each gets to make a presentation to the court in oral argument (often mostly responding to questions from the panel) in the same order. No surprises, both sides are fully apprised and fully prepared to respond.

For a debate, you should correspond to discuss precisely where you disagree and structure the debate to focus on those issues. Then you should make your initial case in writing (or cite previous work/studies relied on).

There is no point of having a debate where someone cites X and the other isn't familiar with X. It may score debating points, but a thoughtful audience really wants to know if X is really worthy or not and cannot find that out.
Comments

17 comments:

CapitalClimate said...

Sorry to be a nit-picker, but Eli's spellcheck must be running low on carrots. The poor misguided youth's name is spelled "Rogers". It's a common name, but to make sure his embarrassment continues to follow him as long as there are Googling Monkeys, you might want to correct it.

EliRabett said...

Fixed. The Rabett has problems with names.....

CapitalClimate said...

P.S. I apologize for the latest foolishness on behalf of all Meteorologists Who Aren't Scientifically Illiterate (apparently an endangered species).

David B. Benson said...

MWAI, is it a club?

Arthur said...

I've commented there but I'm not particularly familiar with the "Capitol Weather Gang" - can somebody here fill us all in with some background on these folks? Are there a lot of them? Where are they coming from? Do they typically do opinion stuff like this?

EliRabett said...

It started as a bunch of weather frogs, folk who were obsessed with weather. They got picked up by the Washington Post when the Post started its on line blog section.

There was then a split between the group that stayed at the Post, the "Capital Weather Gang" and the group that left "Capital Climate"

Eli rather suspects that we will get the inside info soon. However it was not a happy divorce.

Dano said...

Wow. Morano and RP Jr. That oughta be quite the rhetorical fest.

Ken Green and DotEarth interested. I like it a lot.

Best,

D

CapitalClimate said...

Thingsbreak sums up the "debate" quite well.

Jason, Capital Weather Gang said...

Eli- To be clear, when we moved over to the Post, everyone stayed aboard except one individual, Capital Climate (there was not a "group" that left). I tried to make things work with Capital Climate but it was not meant to be. I respect his decision to be an independent blogger.

Dano said...

That's some good pub for the SwiftBoater, and validation too for both sides.

Best,

D

CapitalClimate said...

There was, in fact, a second individual who left CapitalWeather for what I have good reason to believe were similar reasons.

Jason, Capital Weather Gang said...

I'm not sure what "individual" Capital Climate is referring to. Nobody except Capital Climate left CWG. One contributor -- who was a regular contributor -- scaled back to being an occasional contributor due to his day job commitments -- months after we moved over to WaPo.

CapitalClimate said...

Spin, spin, spin: Once in a year is "occasional contributor"? Gimme a break.

Jason, Capital Weather Gang said...

CapitalClimate-- Matt's working on a piece for us right now and published a summer outlook in May. He does something for us once a quarter or so. He scaled back very amicably and he told me it was b/c of his day job commitments (he runs a legal staffing agency). I'm having lunch with him this week, in fact. Bottom line is that everyone except for you stuck around. And so your original statement that another individual "left" CapitalWeather is just flat out wrong. Here is Matt's bio on our blog, for the record: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2008/01/meet_the_gang.html#ross

Anonymous said...

Steve, please don't make assumptions about why I scaled back my activity at CWG. It was primarily due to work commitments. I maintain a friendly, amicable relationship with several of the "Gang", and certainly don't share your animus. Best of luck to you...Matt.

CapitalClimate said...

Although already linked earlier, thingsbreak's statement of the "debate" resolution bears repeating explicitly:

Is global warming a real but over-hyped inconvenience that should under no circumstances be tackled by aggressive emissions pricing, or merely a vast left wing conspiracy in imminent danger of collapse that should under no circumstances be tackled by aggressive emissions pricing?

deepclimate said...

My favourite of Matt Rogers's idiocies: touting Lucy Skywalker's Greenworld Trust page on non-warming in the Arctic. See Tamino's Open Mind for the "other side" of that particular debate between denialist fantasy and scientific fact.

No wonder CC and the "other individual" left.

As for RP/MM debate, note that RP advocates $5/tonne carbon tax. That's what - 5-6 cents per gallon of gasoline? Andy Revkin, get out while you still have a shred of reputation left.