3 ms·

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

• 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
      > people have to actively "attack" him to curtail the spread of that misinformation. This is really where we disagree. If he's wrong, then the people who know better should show that he's wrong, and make the point by point rebuttal easy to find and then point people to it. Don't attack the messenger. If you do that, people will repeat the message and assume that something is being covered up. The people who claim to be on the side of science should be above playing these kinds of political games, and need to be very cautious about even the appearance of impropriety. I think the idea that science in all its glorious mess needs to be packaged as neater and cleaner than it is, and minority opinions hidden away from the credulous public, actually does much greater harm to the public understanding of scientific issues than any amount of actual divergent opinions that people might come across. If climate skeptics want to look for opinions outside the mainstream, correct or not, they will find them. That gives them one data point in support of their beliefs. If the messenger is under attack, that just gives them another.
      • vinhboy 10y ago
        I put "attack" in quotes because those are his own words. Again, I re-iterate my point, he sees them as an "attack". I do not believe people who dismiss his ideas set out to "attack" him. > The people who claim to be on the side of science should be above playing these kinds of political games, and need to be very cautious about even the appearance of impropriety. You are setting a high bar for them, and that's fine. But doesn't that mean the author of this article should also meet that high bar? He's accusing people who disagree with him as playing politics, but his article does not provide proof. In essence, he is playing politics himself. I don't think that's fair. You are right about the "one data point" part. This article is just another baseless data point for climate change deniers. And that's a problem. Actually, I went back to research the article a bit more clearly. He really should not have used that wikileak email as evidence. It really discredits him more than anything: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/19569 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/19569