Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > A question of PR

Martin A - save your keystrokes. If BB really wanted to know, he'd drop RW a 'curious' email of enquiry.

May 2, 2013 at 12:56 AM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Haha... Yes, normally it is a waste of keystrokes replying to BB.

On the 'FOISA Request for "Insulting/Embarrassing" Emails thread, I predicted that BB would not be able to make sense of any replies. On that thread I intend, rather than replying, just to point out some misconceptions in BB's comment. I have a feeling that my prediction there is likely to be confirmed.

May 2, 2013 at 1:59 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

May 1, 2013 at 9:00 AM | geronimo

Hilary I cannot for the life of me understand why you engage with the little bucker, he's a content-free-zone.

Indeed he is, geronimo. And I do apologize. (But in my defense, I haven't done it very often!)

It's just that I found it amusing that after James Evans and tinyC02 had so elegantly and effortlessly ground the "arguments" of the "little bucker" - as you had so aptly dubbed him - into dust, the content-free one's knee-jerk "response" was to behave exactly as I had described in my earlier transgression [Apr 30, 2013 at 4:27 AM].

Actually, that wasn't a true "transgression", because in that comment I had not addressed him at all;-)

But wouldn't it be nice if he decided to pick up his marbles, run along and find another home to invade?

Then the grown-ups could return to the topic at hand! Speaking of which ...

With each passing day, I become more and more convinced that - rather than attempting the cat-herding exercise that would have to transpire before E17's suggestion could be implemented - the alarmists are doing our work for us.

A few examples ...

Schmidt's recent unfathomably childish refusal to sit at the same Fox TV table as Spencer:

Stossel Show Video: Schmidt vs. Spencer

Their oh so remarkable "twitter-trick" of using social networking to reach out to the public ... by "blocking" anyone whose views they disagree with. A sure-fire way to win friends and influence people, eh?!

Then, of course, there's the Met Office's abysmal effort, My Climate and Me ... and <shameless plug alert> if you're interested in my take on this, pls see:

BREAKING: No comment will be heard from “jewel in the crown” … alarmist headline intact

And then there's the example of my recent close encounters of the truly mind-boggling kind with Richard Betts and his buddy, Oliver Bothe. The short version:

PAGES2K, Betts and the bee in Bothe’s (biased?) bonnet … and speculations

But (by pure serendipity!) hot off the twitter-feed, courtesy of Anthony Watts ... this might be worth checking out as a PR venture worth considering:

50 to 1 project: The true cost of 'action' on climate change.

May 2, 2013 at 6:54 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

BB,

"James Evans, a dislike of being called 'deniers' is a basic tenet of many on the Hill. They are, they claim, 'sceptical', denying nothing, only questioning. And isn't that healthy and necessary and good? I originally gave people the benefit of the doubt - maybe they are just sceptical. But discussions such as this thread show me that the fabric of scepticism really is woven with the thread of denial.

One might expect denial of the science, and that certainly exists here in spades. But people like to cloak themselves in the coat of scientific respectability, questioning the details of sciences that only a few might understand sufficiently. What I find more surprising is that so much denial is peripheral to the real questions of whether climate change is real and should be a cause for concern. There's denial of any honest cost-benefit analysis of fossil fuels - there are no costs, only benefits; there's your and others' denial of the relationships that exist in politics and business; there's denial that sceptics might be nasty and might send rude emails, epitomized by petty FOI requests; there's even denial within denial; denial that anyone else denies the science of greenhouse gasses."

Ummm. This seems to be a braindump. It is useful, in that perhaps I understand a little better who it is that I'm talking to. But it doesn't address what we were talking about, except in the flabbiest terms. Perhaps I could pluck one relevent bit from your essay on denialistalism:

"there's your and others' denial of the relationships that exist in politics and business"

I'm denying the relationships that exist in politics and business? When I ask for details, I get heavy sarcasm followed by a spiel on all the things that deniers deny.

Do you understand that providing evidence might actually work? Do you really think that sarcasm will work? Do you think that writing an essay on the awfulness of denialism will work?

What exactly are you hoping to achieve here? Are you just trying to irritate people who you disagree with, or are you actually trying to change minds?

"I find this bewildering and often ask myself whether these people really believe what they write, or whether they are purposefully dissembling just to win arguments. Do you really believe there to be no connection between US pols and the businesses they protect? The connections are clear to see, the campaign donations published, at least to some extent. Is it possible for you to be so untouched by the real world that you need me to name names before you'll be convinced."

Do I need you to name names?

That would be the whole point. Name those names, make the whole thing utterly explicit. If there's a huge conspiracy going on here, then show me for f*ck's sake. Your argument so far is this:

1) There's a conspiracy between Big Oil and scepticism.

2) You don't believe me? Yeah, right! Like there's no conspiracy. None. OK, sure, there's NO conspiracy, you're right I'm sure. /sarc

3) You still don't believe me? But you're a denier! And deniers deny. You are denying this just like you deny everything, you denying denier.


"Why the dissembling? If any of you stood to gain from what you proclaim here then it would be understandable. But I really don't believe it to be that simple - I really do believe you acting of your own volition. And that leaves me really puzzled."

That's because you don't like the idea that people just as smart as you, just as informed as you, who haven't been bought by BIG OIL, simply evaluate the evidence differently to you.

May 2, 2013 at 7:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames Evans

James Evans, will it work, you ask. For you? No. For Mike Jackson? Most definitely not. For Martin, Hillary, Tiny or Geronimo undoubtedly not. If I manage to provoke you into revealing your closed-mindedness, that is some small compensation for the effort. But you are a vocal minority. There are certainly others who don't need to be shown a picture of the door to know where the exit is, who don't deny the obvious, who are aware that the sceptic arguments promoted here are more nuanced than the zealots would have then believe.

May 2, 2013 at 11:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

The silent majority aren't even listening to you or the other anti fossil fuel evangelists.

May 3, 2013 at 9:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Many warmists are demagogues. They never speak to the person in front of them, trying to have a conversation. Always with a pulpit in their pocket.

May 3, 2013 at 11:45 AM | Registered Commentershub

... will [providing evidence] work, you ask. For you? No. For Mike Jackson? Most definitely not. For Martin, Hillary, Tiny or Geronimo undoubtedly not.
How do you know until you try? Since your posts are an evidence-free zone (and as they are becoming more rambling by the day are virtually a content-free zone) it's hard to see how you can be so sure that actually providing evidence rather than hand-waving and waffle wouldn't work.

And thank you for including me in that pantheon of posters. I may not always agree with them but their contributions are rarely other than sensible, well-reasoned and based on verifiable information. You could learn from them instead of denigrating them.

May 3, 2013 at 1:59 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

BB,

"If I manage to provoke you into revealing your closed-mindedness, that is some small compensation for the effort."

In other words you are a troll.

Engaging with you was a waste of time. You will put this down to my "closed-mindedness". But... you haven't even tried to present any evidence to support your point of view.

May 3, 2013 at 7:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames Evans

James Evans, "Engaging with you was a waste of time", yeah but you enjoyed it really. Go on, admit it!

May 3, 2013 at 8:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

Yes. I did. :)

May 4, 2013 at 9:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames Evans