3 ms·

Look at the top comments on that article and you can easily see why people want to avoid him. He may believe in climate change, but his work is being used to ju

by vinhboy 10y ago

Look at the top comments on that article and you can easily see why people want to avoid him. He may believe in climate change, but his work is being used to justify climate change denial. That's like trying to convince people to vaccinate their children, but then giving a bullhorn to a guy standing outside the clinic screaming about possible negative side effects. Obviously I support his right to publish his findings, but he's misconstruing attempts to stop the spread of misinformation (as in his work is being used to justify misinformation) as censorship.

zuggywugg 10y ago
Not only that, he also wants to do nothing about climate change progress other than put in place a small carbon tax to advance technology. This person is not doing any favors to future generations.
inimino 10y ago
The idea that research should be suppressed because it can be "used to justify denial" (even if it is true) is exactly the problem here.
- vinhboy 10y ago
  I did not say anything about suppression. Avoidance and dismissal is not suppression. No one is suggesting suppression or censorship. But we should be free to exclude, dismiss, and ignore information we find harmful or irrelevant.
  - inimino 10y ago
    > harmful or irrelevant Or politically inconvenient? If you want to say that the research is no good, that it misrepresents the facts, or that journalists handled the material fairly, that would be material. However, if you say that we should dismiss it because it is being used by people we don't like in ways we don't like, you may as well admit the denialists are right, there is a conspiracy to suppress (oh sorry, just exclude, dismiss, and ignore!) any science that doesn't fit the narrative, and that you don't trust the public to evaluate anything for themselves. This is the attitude and the behavior that makes people distrust climate science. If you put a veneer of falsehood and spin on a mountain of truth, don't be surprised when people assume the falsehood goes all the way through.
    - vinhboy 10y ago
      I am not even sure what your argument is. I am saying he can publish whatever he wants and challenge whatever climate science he wants. That is his absolutely right. But if people think his work his crap, and want to ignore him, then that's their right. It's hypocritical to accuse people of being "political" because they disagree with him, when he himself is unfairly accused of being a pawn to the oil industry.
      - inimino 10y ago
        I see. It seems we disagree on the substance of what is at issue here. > But if people think his work his crap, and want to ignore him, then that's their right. Of course. That is not at issue. From the article: "My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career. Instead, my research was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians." The allegation is not that people are disagreeing with him in good faith because they think his work was crap. The allegation is that people are shunning him and his research because it is inconvenient. Whether that is true or not, that is what is at issue. In your top-level comment, you don't take issue with his allegations. Rather, you seem to suggest that whatever happened is acceptable because his research is open to misinterpretation and misuse. You also claim he misconstrued something as censorship, but what he claimed was an attack on his career, which you didn't address. So, my argument is that you appear to be justifying something that shouldn't be justified (and may or may not have occurred) and you haven't actually engaged with what is being alleged.
        vinhboy 10y ago
        Yes we disagree. I think people ignore him because they think he's wrong. Not because they are not political. I am sure some are, but not all. And because his "wrongness" is being used to spread misinformation, people have to actively "attack" him to curtail the spread of that misinformation.
        inimino 10y ago

by vinhboy 10y ago

zuggywugg 10y ago

Not only that, he also wants to do nothing about climate change progress other than put in place a small carbon tax to advance technology. This person is not doing any favors to future generations.

inimino 10y ago

The idea that research should be suppressed because it can be "used to justify denial" (even if it is true) is exactly the problem here.

vinhboy 10y ago
I did not say anything about suppression. Avoidance and dismissal is not suppression. No one is suggesting suppression or censorship. But we should be free to exclude, dismiss, and ignore information we find harmful or irrelevant.
- inimino 10y ago
  > harmful or irrelevant Or politically inconvenient? If you want to say that the research is no good, that it misrepresents the facts, or that journalists handled the material fairly, that would be material. However, if you say that we should dismiss it because it is being used by people we don't like in ways we don't like, you may as well admit the denialists are right, there is a conspiracy to suppress (oh sorry, just exclude, dismiss, and ignore!) any science that doesn't fit the narrative, and that you don't trust the public to evaluate anything for themselves. This is the attitude and the behavior that makes people distrust climate science. If you put a veneer of falsehood and spin on a mountain of truth, don't be surprised when people assume the falsehood goes all the way through.
  - vinhboy 10y ago
    I am not even sure what your argument is. I am saying he can publish whatever he wants and challenge whatever climate science he wants. That is his absolutely right. But if people think his work his crap, and want to ignore him, then that's their right. It's hypocritical to accuse people of being "political" because they disagree with him, when he himself is unfairly accused of being a pawn to the oil industry.
    - inimino 10y ago
      I see. It seems we disagree on the substance of what is at issue here. > But if people think his work his crap, and want to ignore him, then that's their right. Of course. That is not at issue. From the article: "My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career. Instead, my research was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians." The allegation is not that people are disagreeing with him in good faith because they think his work was crap. The allegation is that people are shunning him and his research because it is inconvenient. Whether that is true or not, that is what is at issue. In your top-level comment, you don't take issue with his allegations. Rather, you seem to suggest that whatever happened is acceptable because his research is open to misinterpretation and misuse. You also claim he misconstrued something as censorship, but what he claimed was an attack on his career, which you didn't address. So, my argument is that you appear to be justifying something that shouldn't be justified (and may or may not have occurred) and you haven't actually engaged with what is being alleged.
      - vinhboy 10y ago
        Yes we disagree. I think people ignore him because they think he's wrong. Not because they are not political. I am sure some are, but not all. And because his "wrongness" is being used to spread misinformation, people have to actively "attack" him to curtail the spread of that misinformation.
        inimino 10y ago