23 ms·

I think the point being made is that many of the ones who started pushing this misleading quote did understand, even if not everyone who has since repeated also

I think the point being made is that many of the ones who started pushing this misleading quote did understand, even if not everyone who has since repeated also understood. Quote mining is something that scientists are seldom trained to defend against (I'm very quote-minable, I'm sure), and so if you put a microphone in front of any of us for long enough, and we'll say something true but that when taken out of context would seem to imply something false. When you take Jones' comment out of its context, it can be very misleading, even to intelligent people, and so I don't doubt that intelligent and honest people have repeated this lie without intending to be dishonest.

Mz 17y ago
That's not how I read it all. Here is the closing statement from this piece: They were afraid that any data they allowed to be characterised by non-climate scientists would be vulnerable to propagandistic distortion. And they were right. Most people seem to routinely ascribe evil intentions to whomever they view as "antagonists" for some reason. I don't find that is typically true. This article pretty clearly takes that same position (and you seem to agree with it). I really don't think that is what most people do at all. But taking the position that someone else is being intentionally misleading is a great way to deepen the rift, if that is your goal. If your real goal is to get better information out there, it's a terribly counterproductive thing to do.
- cgranade 17y ago
  Given that there is an immense amount of money involved in the fossil fuel industries, it's hard (and even, in my opinion, unwise) to not ascribe ill motives to those who start such lies. When it comes to climate change, the denialists have spent so much time, effort and money on propagating patent falsehoods that I think we are completely justified in saying that we have applied Hanlon's razor [1], but that the falsehoods we are now seeing take root cannot be ascribed to stupidity alone. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
  - Mz 17y ago
    I'm sorry, I don't see it that way, even given "conflict of interest" or whatever else you might want to call it. It looks to me like the immense amount of money involved in the fossil fuel industries is basically a survival/self-preservation issue. And so is trying to clean up the environment so the species as a whole can survive. It generally does not help to disregard the short-term survival needs of the people you are arguing with and leap straight to an assumption of "malice", which assumes they actively want to hurt people. Willingness to disregard the welfare of others (or downplay long-term negative consequences out of fear of the short-term consequences) because one has a compelling survival issue is not the same thing as malice. I also believe firmly that in many cases they really just don't see a problem, at least not one compelling enough to embrace/justify the kind of "radical" positions that the opposition takes. I live without a car. In online forums where I talk about my choice to live without a car, it sometimes gets very freaked out reactions from people. People who are in no position to give up their car find my views and my choices very personally threatening. I see no reason to vilify them for such feelings and every reason to do all in my power to not vilify them. In most conflicts, both sides feel the other side "started it". In many cases, no one intentionally started anything. The friction that exists is very often inherent to the circumstance and not indicative of human evil.

Mz 17y ago

That's not how I read it all. Here is the closing statement from this piece: They were afraid that any data they allowed to be characterised by non-climate scientists would be vulnerable to propagandistic distortion. And they were right. Most people seem to routinely ascribe evil intentions to whomever they view as "antagonists" for some reason. I don't find that is typically true. This article pretty clearly takes that same position (and you seem to agree with it). I really don't think that is what most people do at all. But taking the position that someone else is being intentionally misleading is a great way to deepen the rift, if that is your goal. If your real goal is to get better information out there, it's a terribly counterproductive thing to do.

cgranade 17y ago
Given that there is an immense amount of money involved in the fossil fuel industries, it's hard (and even, in my opinion, unwise) to not ascribe ill motives to those who start such lies. When it comes to climate change, the denialists have spent so much time, effort and money on propagating patent falsehoods that I think we are completely justified in saying that we have applied Hanlon's razor [1], but that the falsehoods we are now seeing take root cannot be ascribed to stupidity alone. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
- Mz 17y ago
  I'm sorry, I don't see it that way, even given "conflict of interest" or whatever else you might want to call it. It looks to me like the immense amount of money involved in the fossil fuel industries is basically a survival/self-preservation issue. And so is trying to clean up the environment so the species as a whole can survive. It generally does not help to disregard the short-term survival needs of the people you are arguing with and leap straight to an assumption of "malice", which assumes they actively want to hurt people. Willingness to disregard the welfare of others (or downplay long-term negative consequences out of fear of the short-term consequences) because one has a compelling survival issue is not the same thing as malice. I also believe firmly that in many cases they really just don't see a problem, at least not one compelling enough to embrace/justify the kind of "radical" positions that the opposition takes. I live without a car. In online forums where I talk about my choice to live without a car, it sometimes gets very freaked out reactions from people. People who are in no position to give up their car find my views and my choices very personally threatening. I see no reason to vilify them for such feelings and every reason to do all in my power to not vilify them. In most conflicts, both sides feel the other side "started it". In many cases, no one intentionally started anything. The friction that exists is very often inherent to the circumstance and not indicative of human evil.